Sh. MUNIR AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL AND 2 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which upheld the appointment of a receiver in a suit for the dissolution of a partnership and rendition of accounts. The petitioner, who managed the partnership business, challenged the appointment of a receiver, arguing that the property was already in the possession of a lessee and that the trial court improperly issued directions amounting to a dissolution order without first passing a preliminary decree. The Supreme Court examined whether the appointment of a receiver was justified given the circumstances of the partnership dispute and the management of the business. The Court held that the lower courts had exercised their discretion on sound judicial principles, noting that the receiver was necessary to protect the partnership business and that the trial court's subsequent directions were appropriate measures for such protection. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming that the appointment of a receiver is a valid exercise of judicial discretion when necessary to safeguard partnership assets pending litigation.
- Is the appointment of a receiver in a partnership dissolution suit justified when the business is allegedly mismanaged?
- Can a trial court issue directions to a receiver to protect partnership business before the passing of a preliminary decree?
- Does the existence of a lessee in possession of the property preclude the appointment of a receiver for the partnership business?
- Order XL Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.---The petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a partnership business to run a Cinema in Sialkot city on the 22nd March 1967 and an agreement of part--nership was reduced to writing on the 22nd August 1967. Under the terms of the partnership deed, the share of the petitioner was one-half and of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was one-fourth each. The petitioner was responsible for the partnership business and to keep the accounts. The site on which the Cinema was built was owned by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 jointly. There were differences between the parties. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for the dissolution of partnership and rendition of account in the Court of learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot on the 13th June 1969.
2. In the suit, he filed an application under Order XL, rule 1, C. P. C. Read with section 151, C. P. C. And prayed for the appointment of a receiver. The learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot, on the 14th November 1969, appointed Ch. Arshad Hussain, Advocate, as receiver. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, which was dismissed on the 15th January 1970, with a direction that the possession of Messrs A. A. Younis Bhatti & Co., the lessee in occupation of the Cinema was not to be disturbed, except in due course of law. This order was challenged in revision before the High Court which was dismissed on the 18th June 1971, along with another connected Civil Revision No. 612 of 1970. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. Sh. Bashir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that it was not a fit case for appointment of a receiver as the property in dispute is in possession of Messrs A. A. Younis Bhatti & Co. Who could easily be directed to deposit the lease amount in the Bank. He further contended that after the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed the learned Administrative Civil Judge has given further direction to the receiver which amounts to an order of dissolution of partnership. The learned counsel contend--ed that the trial Court could not pass such an order without first passing the preliminary decree. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. Mr. Razzaque, learned counsel for the respondent, has pointed out that the receiver has leased out the stalls and has recovered a sum of Rs. 17,000 from the stall-holders. He further pointed out that the petitioner was not managing the partnership business properly and, there--fore, a notice of dissolution of partnership was given before the suit was filed.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are satisfied that the learned Courts below have appointed the receive of the partnership business on sound judicial principles. The learned Administrative Civil Judge has issued further direction in order to protect the partnership business.
5. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- Nusrat Aftab vs Rabeah Hussain and 4 others 2022 LHC 3139, 2025 PLD Lahore 366
- NUSRAT AFTAB Versus RABEAH HUSSAIN 2025 PLD 366
- Syed KHURSHID SOHAIL Versus AZIZ HAMI 1988 MLD 381
- MESSRS ABDUR RAZZAK AND 9 OTHERS vs Mst. ZOHRA BEGUM AND ANOTHER 1983 CLC 1658
- EASTERN COMPANY (PRIVATE) LTD., LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS vs Mst. GUL BEGUM 1980 PLD Lahore 69
- ABDUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER vs ABDUL GHAFOOR AND ANOTHER 1976 PLD Karachi 504