MRS. MEHAR SULTAN JUNG vs QURBAN HUSSAIN
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan dismissing the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner had previously filed an application for the appointment of a Receiver which resulted in a consent order attaching the disputed property. Subsequently, the petitioner sought directions under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Nazir to collect occupational charges and look after the property, without applying for the appointment of a Receiver. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the proper remedy lay under Order XL, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a Division Bench dismissed the subsequent Letters Patent Appeal in limine. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not available where the Code provides a specific procedure for obtaining the desired relief.
- Can section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure be invoked where the Code provides a specific procedure for the relief sought?
- Whether the appointment of a Receiver is required before directing the Nazir to collect occupational charges from a disputed property?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XL Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for leave is from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, dismissing the petitioner's application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. On the 10th February 1971, the petitioner had filed an application foe the appointment of a Receiver of the property in dispute and it was disposed of by consent order on 7 of May 1971, whereby the disputed property was attached. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 151, Cr.
3. P. C. For a direction that the Nazir of the High Court be asked to collect the occupational charges from the persons in possession of the property in dispute and to look after the property. Evidently this direction could not be given unless the Nazir had been first appointed as the Receiver. The petitioner, however, was not prepared to make an application for the appointment of Receiver. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the petitioner could only obtain the relief asked for under Order XL, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure and he accordingly dismissed the petitioner's application.
4. The petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the High Court.
5. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petitioner may pursue her remedy under the appro--priate provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that where the Code has provided for a particular proce--dure the provision of section 151 of the Code is not available.
6. The petition is dismissed.th
Cited by 9 cases
- Syed Salah-Ud-Din vs Ali Jan 2023 CLC 2134, 2024 PLJ Quetta 68
- PESCO through Chief Executive, WAPDA House, Peshawar and 4 others vs M_s. TARIQ COLD STORAGE through Managing Director and 3 others 2011 CLC 164
- I.T.A. No. 1547/KB of 2003, decided on 26th September, 2005. Versus I.T.A. No. 1547/KB of 2003, decided on 26th September, 2005. 2006 PTD 2361
- KHALID SAEED vs SHAMIM RIZVAN and others 2003 SCMR 1505
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs Mst. BASHIRAN and 9 others 2000 C.L.R. 1147
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus BASHIRAN 2000 PLD 820
- Mst. ARFA ARIF vs Mst. KULSOOM NAQVI 2000 PLD Karachi 31
- FAIZ ALI SHAH vs THE STATE 1989 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 61
- Mst. SALMA JAWAID AND 3 OTHERSs vs S. M. ARSHAD AND 7 OTHERS 1983 PLD Karachi 303