Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 186‑R of 1980, decided on 20th December, 1980.

‑‑ O. XL, r. 1‑Receiver, appointment of‑Respondent found to be owner of disputed land and petitioners vendees not paying full price: originally agreed upon and instead cutting trees standing over land High Court, held, justified in appointing a receiver so as to protect property from destruction during pendency of revision petition‑Leave to appeal declined.‑[Receiver].

Vanibai and another v. Republic of Pakistan etc. P L D 1970 Kar. 42 ref.

Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1.

M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 20th December, 1980.

This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Judge of the Baluchistan High Court on the 15th of November, 1980, by which it was directed that Tashildar, Dhadar, shall take over the land in dispute as receiver, and maintain proper account of its produce, during the pendency of the respondent's revision petition in the High Court against the dismissal of their counter claim by the trial Court as well as by the Majlis‑e‑Shoora in appeal.

2. The dispute relates to the agricultural land situate in the Province of Baluchistan, which Ch. Khillu Ram, father of respondent No. 1 had agreed to sell to the petitioners by three agreements dated the 20th of August, 1963, 30th of September, 1963 and the 6th of January, 1964. As a dispute arose between the parties regarding the area owned by the vendor, the petitioners filed a suit on the 19th of March, 1972, for a declaration and permanent injunction before the Deputy Commissioner of the Kachhi District. The respondents resisted the suit, and also set up a counter claim for possession of the land in dispute, mainly on the ground that the petitioners had not carried out their part of the contract, namely, that they had not developed the land at a cost of Rs. 80,000 as envisaged in the third agreement. They also contended that petitioners had not paid entire sale price of Rs. 62,000 as originally agreed, and had instead paid only Rs. 12,000 as earnest money. The suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Qazi of Lehri, and he also dismissed the counter claim for possession as asserted by the respondents.

3. It appears that the petitioners were content with the dismissal of their suit, but the respondents filed an appeal before the Majlis‑e‑Shoora, which appeal was dismissed on the 10th March, 1980.

4. Against the dismissal of their appeal, the respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court, and also applied for the appointment of a receiver curing the pendency of the revision petition. By the order under appeal, the learned Judge of the High Court has accepted the prayer for the appointment of a receiver mainly on the ground that admittedly Ch. Khillu Ram was the original owner of the disputed property, and its possession was passed on to the present petitioners through an agreement, which they failed to completely perform; and there was also the allegation that they were destroying the property by cutting trees from the land.

5. Relying upon Vanibai and another v. Republic of Pakistan etc. (P L D 1970 Kar. 42), it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts did not justify an interim appointment of a receiver during the pendency of the revision, as the main suit filed by the petitioners was for a declaration, and a receiver could not be appointed merely because a counter claim had been made by the respondents.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that this is not at all a fit case for our interference in the matter. It is clear that Ch. Khillu Ram was the original owner of the land, and it is also evident from the record that the petitioners had not paid the full price originally agreed upon in the first agreement, namely, Rs.62,000. They had paid only a small amount of Rs. 12,000. There was also the allegation that they were cutting trees from the disputed land. In the circumstances, the learned Judge in the High Court was amply justified in appointing a receiver so as to protect the property from destruction during the pendency of the revision petition.

As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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