1. NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman is representing CIRC in the matter who is not a party to the proceeding. Mr. Abul Inam states that CIRC has nothing to do in the matter and that the CIRC has stepped into the shoes of UBL a creditor of the respondent. He further submits that the creditor can lodge his claim with the Official Liquidator but cannot intervene the Court proceedings and the matter is between the parties and the Court. In support of his contention Mr. Abul Inam relied upon Investment Corporation of Pakistan v. Messrs Noor Silk Mills Ltd. 1998 CLC 543.
2. On the other hand Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman submits that in accordance with section 318 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 an order for winding up a company shall operate in favour of all the creditors and of all the contributors of the company as if made on the joint petition of a creditor and contributors of a company. He further submits that the CIRC has stepped into the shoes of the UBL a creditor of the company and he is entitled to appear on behalf of a creditor. Mr. Aamir Naqvi learned counsel for the petitioner states that CIRC has no locus standi to intervene the proceedings. He further submits that no application for becoming a party to the proceeding has been filed by CIRC and that the petitioner for winding up was filed by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies for not complying the statutory provisions of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and not by the creditors of the company. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and perused the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 as well as the reported judgment cited by Mr. Abul Inam.
3. The provision of section 318 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 is very clear and says that the winding up order shall operate in favour of all the creditors and contributors of the Company as if made on the joint petition of a creditor and of a contributory. In this matter the winding up order was passed on 8-3-2004 and the order in view of section 318 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 is operating in favour of all the creditors and contributors of the Company.
4. In the judgment cited by Mr. Abul Inam the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was dismissed as at that time no winding up order was passed and no right was accrued to the creditors and contributors and secondly the remedy by way of filing of execution was available. In this matter since the company was wound up and application for setting aside of winding up order is pending the creditors and the contributors have right to intervene and to assist the. Court. Since the order is operating in favour of the creditors by operation of law no formal application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Is required and the creditors with the leave of the Court can place their point of view before the Court.
5. Furthermore in case of setting aside of the winding up order the creditors and contributors will suffer as such their presence before the Court is necessary. Even otherwise the Court can call anyone to assist the Court and no restriction can be placed on the Court.
6. In view of above I overrule the objection raised by Mr. Abul Inam and allow Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman, Advocate to appear in his case for CIRC to place this point of view at the time of hearing of application. The office is directed to fix all the pending applications for hearing on any day other than Monday after Winter Holidays.
7. Objection overruled.