Find a Lawyer

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

‑‑‑Ss. 115 & O.XL, R.1(2)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Appointment of receiver ‑‑Petitioner failed to establish a right in present to dislodge the party in possession‑‑Where order sought by the petitioner related to discretionary jurisdiction which was not exercised either facifully or arbitrarily in its being declined; such order did not become amenable to the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Shahazada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood and another r L D 1970 S C 139 and Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others P L D 1983 SC 53 ref.

Taj Muhammad Khan Langah for Petitioner.

There is no error of jurisdiction involved in the order passed by the trial Court on 15‑11‑1986 to reject the petitioner's prayer for appointment of a receiver for the land in dispute, and its being upheld by a learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 22‑6‑1987, on the ground that the petitioner had not been able to establish any title for the land in dispute to be able to make out a prima facie case.

2. The order sought by the petitioner related to the domain of discretionary jurisdiction which cannot be said to have in this case been exercised either fancifully or arbitrarily in its being declined and such an order does not become amenable to the exercise Of IA revisional jurisdiction, as has been held in Shahzada Muhammad Umer Beg v. Sultan Mahmood and another P L D 1970 S C 139 and re‑affirmed in Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others P L D 1983 SC 53.

3. Actually, sub‑rule (2) of rule 1 of Order XL of the C.P.C. also stood in the way of the petitioner's prayer being accepted inasmuch as he had not been able to establish a right in present to dislodge the party in possession.

4. There is no force in the civil revision which is accordingly dismissed in limine.

M.B.A./N‑69/L Revision 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.