Mian ABDUL LATIF vs ZAHOOR DIN
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the appointment of a receiver in a pre-emption suit. A consent decree for possession by pre-emption was passed in favour of the respondent, who deposited the requisite decretal amount, but execution was delayed due to the court file being damaged by floods, necessitating reconstruction. To safeguard the respondent's interests during the delay, the Senior Civil Judge appointed a receiver over part of the suit land and crops, an order affirmed by the Additional District Judge and the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a receiver was a fair and equitable interim measure necessitated by an act of God preventing execution, and declined to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that courts may appoint a receiver as an equitable measure to protect a decree-holder's rights when execution is delayed through no fault of the parties due to extraordinary circumstances.
- Whether a receiver can be appointed to manage suit land and crops when execution of a pre-emption decree is delayed due to the destruction of the court file by floods?
- Does the appointment of a receiver in such circumstances constitute a fair and equitable exercise of judicial discretion?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in discretionary orders passed by lower courts where the petitioner has consented to the original decree and no injustice is shown?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--A consent decree for possession by pre-emption was passed in favour of the respondent on 6-11-1973 and the said respondent deposited the sum of Rs. 88,000 in Court as price of the suit land. Before the decree could, however, be executed, the case file was damaged by the floods and the decree sheet became indecipherable. Consequently, the file was ordered to be reconstructed. But as this was taking an enormous time, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, on the respondent's application, appointed Naib-Tehsildar, Ferozewala as a receiver to take into custody 15 killas of land out of the suit land and the crops standing thereon and directed him to manage the land and deposit the proceeds of the crops in Court pending decision of the suit, vide his order dated 3-4-1976.
2. Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, which was dismissed on 4-3-1977. He then filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, which too was dismissed on 21-3-1977 by an elaborate order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we are clearly of the view that this is not at all a fit case in exercise of this Court's discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal. The decree has been passed in favour of the respondent with the consent of the petitioner. He has deposited the pre-emption amount in Court and has been unable to execute the decree on account of an act of God and while the necessary steps are being taken to enable the respondent to do so, the receiver has been appointed to safeguard, his interest. The order passed is a fair and equitable one and no interference therein is called for.
4. The petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.