| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3245 2025 SLD 3245 = 2025 PLD 366 |
F.A.O. No. 26851 of 2022, heard on 6th May, 2022.
Before Shujaat Ali Khan, J NUSRAT AFTAB---Appellant Versus
Mst. Tahira Kausar v. S.H.O. and others 2005 YLR 3046; Muhammad Ashraf Khan v. Abdul Qadar and 3 others 1995 SCMR 296; Messrs Eastern Medical Technology Services v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 2019 Lah. 395 and Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Ganeshi Lal & Sons 2000 PTD 677 distinguished. Ms. Sadia Malik for Appellant. Hafeez ur Rehman Ch. for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th May, 2022.
NUSRAT AFTAB---Appellant
VERSUS
RABEAH HUSSAIN and 4 others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 1
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 42,54
Law: Partnership Act (IX of 1932)
Section: 42
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XL, R.1 & O. XXXVII, Rr. 1, 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.46-A & 78-A---Suit for declaration, rendition of accounts, recovery, permanent and mandatory injunction---Receiver, appointment of---Pre-requisites---Neither any emerging situation had been pointed out by the trial court regarding appointment of receiver, nor any persuasive reasons for exercising of powers under O. XL, C.P.C., had been divulged in the impugned order---Trial Court despite observing that the power to appoint a receiver is to be sparingly used by the courts of law, accepted the application filed by the respondents while relying upon emails despite the fact that same could not be referred until and unless they were proved in terms of the provisions of Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, read with Arts. 46- A & 78-A of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984--- In case of any substance in the application for appointment of receiver, the Trial Court could order for inquiry and if there had been any report to the effect that the subject matter of the suit was at the verge of waste or peril, it could appoint a receiver but the same could not be done on the basis of the apprehension of the respondents---First appeal against order was accepted, in circumstances.