1. ORDER NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQUI, 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 step 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 can not intervene the Court proceeding 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. M/s. 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 step into the shoes of the UBL a creditor of the company he is entitled to appear on behalf of a creditor.
3. 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.
4. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for perused the provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 as well as the reported judgment cited by Mr. Abut Inam.
5. 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 arid-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.
6. In the judgment cited by Mr. Abul Inam the application u/o. 1, 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 second 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 u/O. 1, 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.
7. Further more in case.Of setting aside of the winding Tip order the creditors and contributors will suffer as such their presence before the Court is necessary. Even otherwise the Court can call any one to assist the Court and no restriction can be placed on the Court.
8. In view of above I over-ruled the objection raised by Mr. Abul inam and allow Mr. Aziz-ur-Rehman, Advocate to appear in this case for C.I.R.C. To place his point of vide at the time of hearing of application.
9. The office is directed to fix all the pending applications for hearing on any day other than Monday after Winter Holidays.