MASTER TAHILRAM vs LILARAM
This matter arises from a petition for review of an order refusing leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the High Court. The revision petition had challenged the appointment of a receiver of lands in dispute by the District Judge during the pendency of a suit for declaration of title and affirmation of possession instituted by the respondent against the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a receiver was justified where the plaintiff established a prima facie case, there was a danger of alienation of the lands, and the petitioner had cut standing trees. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of a receiver was just and proper based on concurrent findings of the lower courts and that no grounds for review were made out. The key principle laid down is that a review petition cannot succeed without demonstrating the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Whether the appointment of a receiver is justified when a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and there is a danger of property being alienated?
- What are the mandatory grounds for entertaining a petition for review against an order of the Supreme Court?
- Can an order refusing leave to appeal be reviewed in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-P. S. L. A. No. K-30 of 1969 called in question the appointment of a receiver of the lands in dispute by the District Judge on appeal till the decision of the suit instituted by the respondent against the petitioner for declara--tion of title and affirmation of possession.
2. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner in the view that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that there was danger of the lands being alienated. The petitioner was also found to have cut the standing trees on the land.
3. As the appointment of receiver was just and proper on the concurrent findings of the Courts below, leave to appeal was refused by the order dated the 9th May 1969. The petitioner now seeks review of the order, but without making out a proper case for re-consideration of the Court's decision.
4. Neither any new and important matter or evidence has been discovered nor is any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. On the contrary we have on re-examining the record reached the same conclusions, namely, that it was just and proper to appoint a receiver of the lands in dispute till the final decision of the suit.
5. The petition for review is, accordingly, rejected.
Cited by 11 cases
- SARFARAZ KHAN KHILJI Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA 2025 CLC 1836
- Mst. Maria Aziz vs Muhammad Nawaz 2021 YLR 2432, 2021 PHC 267
- Toba Saeed through her Father vs Chairman Admission Committee 2021 MLD 520
- Messrs Abaseen ORE through Azmat Khan vs Director General (Licensing 2021 PLJ Quetta 196, 2021 PLD Balochistan 9
- Syed Mujahid Raza etc vs MD. PEPCO and others 2020 CLC 1578, 2020 PHC 148
- FANOOS KHAN Versus ABDUL MUNAF 2021 CLC 47
- MANZOOR AHMED PARACHA Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED 2017 CLCN 192
- Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 2004 SCMR 1315
- Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 2004 PLC(CS) 1164
- Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB 2004 PLJ SC 739
- Muhammad Faraz vs Province of Punjab through District Collector Vehari 2025 LHC 2236