The Receiver Appointments must be used as a Last Resort and only under Compelling Circumstances --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 13-01-2025: The Lahore High Court, in a significant ruling, declared the appointment of a Receiver in a long-standing inheritance dispute illegal, setting aside the orders of the lower Courts. Mr. Justice Rasaal Hasan Syed directed the Civil Judge to ensure a final resolution of the matter within four months, avoiding unnecessary delays.

The case, Dost Muhammad (deceased) through L.Rs and others Vs. Muhammad Sarwar and others (W.P. No. 48544 of 2024), revolves around the inheritance of a 2315-kanal and 16-marla estate left by the late Fateh Din, who passed away in 1905. The respondents, claiming to be legal heirs, sought a declaration of their Islamic shares in the property and the appointment of a Receiver to manage the estate during litigation.

Lower Courts had granted the Respondents’ application for the appointment of a Receiver, prompting the Petitioners who had already been awarded specific shares by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in earlier litigation to challenge the orders.

Mr. Justice Rasaal Hasan Syed emphasized that the appointment of a Receiver is a harsh remedy under Order XL, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) and should be exercised sparingly. The Court observed that:

1. The shares of the petitioners had been determined by the Supreme Court in [Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1994], while the Respondents’ claims were yet to be adjudicated.
2. Appointing a Receiver would unjustly deprive the petitioners of possession of their lawful shares without sufficient justification.
3. Lower Courts failed to establish mandatory grounds such as wastage, dissipation, or irreparable loss, which are prerequisites for such an order.

The Court relied on precedents, including Mr. Sardar Wali Muhammad Vs. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal (PLD 1975 Lah. 492) and Mst. Ghulam Sughran alias Sughra Naz Vs. Muhammad Ayyub Dar (1989 CLC 2493), to reiterate that bona fide possession by co-sharers should not be disturbed until partition by metes and bounds is finalized.

Judgment Highlights:

1. The Court overturned the lower Courts’ orders dated 06.06.2024 and 22.07.2024, terming them illegal and without jurisdiction.
2. The Civil Judge was directed to conclude the case within four months, ensuring no further delays in resolving the century-old dispute.
3. The Court clarified that the petitioners, whose shares were already determined, could not be deprived of possession based on the unresolved claims of the Respondents.

This judgment reinforces the principle that Receiver appointments must be used as a last resort and only under compelling circumstances. It also underscores the judiciary’s responsibility to prevent undue delays in litigation, particularly in inheritance disputes with historical and generational complexities.

The decision is expected to serve as a precedent for future cases involving inheritance disputes and the exercise of judicial discretion under Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C.

Powered by Froala Editor