ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. Versus HAND TOOLS LTD
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.‑‑ The appellant as pledgee of the goods had felt aggrieved against the order dated 5‑5‑1986 passed in Suit No. 183/1983. The respondent No.l had filed a suit against respondents 2 and 3 and had got a receiver appointed in respect of the goods belonging to respondent No. 1. The appellant as an intervenor made an application before the Honourable Single Judge and made a grievance that it was a pledgee of certain goods and as such it had their possession and it has been deprived of the said goods. The receiver had taken possession of the said goods in pursuance of the order of the Court. The Honourable Single Judge while dismissing the application of the appellant observed that the intervenor will be entitled to make a claim in respect of their goods and since the property in the case belongs to defendant No.l, if the intervenor has any claim over the property of the plaintiff then it can make a proper application to that effect and that the goods shall remain in the custody of the receiver as ordered by the Court.
2. Mr. Zaidi, for the appellant has contended that as pledgee the appellant had a right to retain the goods. He has relied upon Order 40 Rule (1) (2) C.P.C which provides that nothing in this rule shall authorise the Court to remove from the possession or custody of property any person whom any party to the suit has not present right so to remove. The objection of the appellant is more of a technical nature than of substance. The Single Judge has not made any decision against the appellant and on the other hand has left the whole question open and has in fact allowed the appellant to make a proper claim in respect of their goods and has left the further question open of the priority being claimed in respect of the same by the appellant. We are quite sure that the claim of the appellant will be given due consideration by the Single Judge and if they have prior right over the same, then it will be duly acceded to. The counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 have appeared before us and they have supported the impugned order and stated that if the appellant can establish their claim as pledgee, then they would be obviously entitled to a preferential claim over the claim in respect of goods for which they can establish their pledge. This being the position, we do not find any prejudice having been caused to the appellant by the impugned Order.
3. Mr. Zaidi has further submitted that the appellant would have been in a better position to secure a better offer and to sell the goods at a higher price. None of the counsel for the other side has denied the right of the appellant to secure a better offer in respect of the goods pledged and, therefore, it would always be open appellant to secure a better offer for the pledged goods for the satisfaction of its claim. With these observations this appeal is disposed of.
4. H . B . T . / A‑248/ K ‑‑‑‑‑ Order accordingly.