Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑23 of 1969 decided on 6th May 1969.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 6th February 1969, in L.P.A. No. 25 of 1969).

Sched, Part IV and Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑Property already disposed of under Act‑Not available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII.

--O. XL, r. 1‑Appoint rnent of receiver‑Discretion of Court‑Supreme Court would not interfere with unless discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or without regard to principles governing appointment of receiver.

Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by; Vakil Ahmad Ridwai, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 6th May 1969.

The respondents have instituted a suit against the petitioner in the High Court of West Pakistan, at Karachi for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000 odd on account of use and: occupation of Noor Mahal Cinema which stands transferred to them under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958, and for rendition of accounts of the income of the cinema upto the date of delivery of its possession and for appointment of a Receiver. The learned Judge trying the suit: considered it just and proper to appoint an interim Receiver of the Cinema who has since taken over its possession. An appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Letters Patent Bench having failed he now seeks leave to appeal on the ground that as stay order was granted by the Settlement Commissioner in proceedings initiated by him .for transfer of the cinema to him under Settle ment Scheme No. VIII and in the alternative for computing the amount of investment made by him on the repairs and improve ment of the cinema building to which extent he would be entitled the be associated with the respondents in the transfer in their favour the learned Judges in the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to disturb his possession by appointment of a Receiver.

The learned Judges expressed the view that the petitioner was not eligible for transfer of the cinema under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and that it was otherwise just and proper to appoint an interim Receiver of the cinema to protect the rights of the respondents. It has been held by this Court that properties which already stand disposed of are not available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and that the persons in possession cannot now impugn the legality of the transfer already made to lay claim to them under that Scheme. No exception can, there fore, be taken to the view expressed by the learned Judges regarding the entitlement of the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VIII.

It is contended that as the respondents have not paid the sale price, the transfer in their favour was liable to be cancelled in which case the petitioner will be eligible for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. We would refrain from making any observation on the correctness of the contention as the matter is pending consideration of the Chief Settlement Commissioner currently. The observation made by the Letters Patent of the High Court in disposing of the Letters Patent appeal on this point should also be confined to the matter of appointment of an interim Receiver only.

What is relevant for the purpose of this order is whether this Court will, in the exercise of its special jurisdiction, interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the exercise of its discre tionary jurisdiction under O. XL, r. 1. C. P. C. It is not made to appear that the learned Judges have, in exercise of their jurisdic tion, acted arbitrarily or without due regard to the principles governing the appointment of an interim Receiver. On the contrary, we find that in the circumstances and facts of the case it was just and proper to appoint an interim Receiver to protect and safeguard the interest of the respondents. More so, as the petitioner is in possession since 1‑9‑1961 when the cinema was transferred to the respondents and has uptil now not paid a single penny to them by way of rent or compensation for use and occupation.

This petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.