MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- Through this appeal the appellant has challenged the order dated 12.10.2010 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the earlier order for the appointment of receiver and deposit of the rent amount to the extent of appellant's share in the Court has been modified regarding appointment of the receiver on the application of the defendant/respondent.
2. The precise factual position is that the appellant filed a suit for declaration, partition, possession, rendition of account and cancellation of surrender deed on the averred ground that the property in dispute had been got transferred by the defendant/respondent in his name. The suit was resisted, however, during the pendency of this .Suit the present appellant filed an application for the appointment of receiver. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.05.2005 passed the following order:--- "Admittedly property is presently under control of defendant No. 1 and he has been receiving rents from the tenants of the commercial properties. The matter of declaration or share of the plaintiff and rendition of accounts sub judice, so it is ordered to the defendant No. 1 to deposit 2/7th share of the rents received or to furnish surety bond to this extent from the tenants of the said commercial properties, since the institution of the suit, in the Court, in capacity of a receiver within 15 days and afterwards before 10th of each month. The defendant No. 1 is also directed to furnish list of tenants in the Court. The application in hand is decided accordingly. Be attached with the main suit file."
The respondents assailed this order before the learned first Appellate Court but the same was withdrawn on 13.07.2005. Another application for the appointment of the receiver was moved by the present appellant which was allowed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.01.2006 in the following terms:--- "Admittedly, parties are residing at England. Presently the suit property is under the control of a Munshi who is acting under the instruction of the defendant No. 1. The custody of a Munshi is not a substitute of real owner not is in the interest of the parties. Rather it give a chance to mis- appropriation and damage to property. In order to safeguard the interest of all the parties and to protect the property from being wasted, appointment of Receiver is necessary. In this perspective of the matter while accepting the above-noted application, the previous order dated 19.05.2005 is revised and Mr. Basharat A.I Gil, Advocate, 10-Fane Road, Lahore (Mobile No. 03001110913 and 4110913) is hereby appointed Receiver. (He is directed to look after the affairs of the suit property Azmat Plaza, on behalf of this Court. The Receiver after inspecting the property will prepare a list of the tenants and the monthly rent. The Receiver will collect the monthly rent and deposit the same in this Court. After that the defendant No. 1 will be at liberty to draw his admitted 5/7 share whereas the other 2/7 share as claimed by the plaintiff will remain in Court Account, payable to the successful party at the time of final decision of the suit. Remuneration of the Receiver is fixed of Rs.
10,000/- per month. Receiver is to have this remuneration from the proceeds. The Receiver is also directed to submit regular monthly statement in the Court.)"
This settlement remained effective, however, on 01.03.2010 the present respondent/defendant filed an application for recalling of the order dated 07.01.2006 on the ground that since the applicant/defendant has now shifted from England to Pakistan, therefore, he is in a position to manage the property in dispute and can also comply with the other part of the order, hence, the appointment of the receiver was unnecessary. The application was resisted by the present appellant/plaintiff, however, the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.10.2010 by accepting the application passed the order in the following terms:--- "Having gone through the order dated 07.01.2006, it transpires that this order was passed on the application of the plaintiff on the ground that the administration of the suit property was being conducted by the Munshi of defendant No. 1 who had proceeded abroad. It was also held in paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 07.01.2006 that presently the suit property is under the control of Munshi who is acting under the instruction of the defendant No. 1 The custody of the Munshi is not a substitute of real owner nor is in the interest of the parties. Rather it gives a chance to misappropriation and damage to the property that is why in order to safeguard the interest of all the parties and to protect the suit property from being wasted, a Receiver was appointed. In view of this situation, it is of paramount situation that defendant has returned to Pakistan and he intends to look after and administer the affairs of the suit property, therefore, application filed by the defendant No. 1 is accepted and he shall be at liberty to look after the affairs of the property himself and he will also be at liberty to draw his admitted 5/7 share whereas the other 2/7 share as claimed , by the petitioner will remain in the Court account, payable, to the successful party at the tune of final descision of the suit. From, hence forthwith the services of the Receiver shall stand suspended and discontinued. Now to come upto 30.10.2010 for further proceedings."
Thus, resulting in instant appeal against this impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the application under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC was not maintainable apart from it being time-barred. Further contends that as per Order 47, Rule 1, CPC; there was no ground available with the learned Trial Court for re-calling' a well-reasoned order passed under review, hence the order is repugnant to the provisions of law and the learned Trial Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction by passing this impugned order.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that apparently the order dated 07.01.2006 has been passed in violation of the provisions of law Order 40, Rule 1, sub-rule 2, CPC.
Since the order was against the spirit of law, hence void ab initio. Further contends that the conditional order has been passed in the absence of the appellant, whereby due to non- availability of the respondent/applicant/defendant, the learned Trial Court held that the Munshi of the applicant cannot manage the affairs of the properties and it was the only reasons that the receiver was appointed. The order shows that the appointment of the receiver was made due to the absence of the present respondent/defendant. It is further submitted that since the present respondent/defendant has moved to Pakistan he is able to manage of the affairs of the property, hence the appointment of the receiver was needless and he had rightly moved the application for the dismissal of the appointment of the receiver. Further contends that no prejudice has caused to the appellant as to the extent of his share, the order dated 07.01.2006 stands intact. Hence, the institution of this appeal is un-called for and implausible.
5. I have considered the arguments and gone though the record of the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. On bare reading of the order dated 07.01.2006, I discover that the receiver was appointed only for the reason that the defendant/respondent was not available in Pakistan and Munshi of the respondent/defendant was not considered an apt person to manage the affairs of the properties. The present appellant had been protected by issuing a direction to deposit of rent to the extent of the present appellant in the Court which has been regularly deposited in the Court by the receiver. Though, the learned Trial Court dismissed the appointment of the receiver through the impugned order but the rights of the present appellant have been protected and the appellant's share of the rent has been directed to be deposited accordingly - this has been undertaken by the respondent even before this Court. Viewed in this perspective, neither any harm whatsoever has been caused to the present appellant nor he has suffered am/Irreparable loss. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order, I am not persuaded by the line of reasoning given by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Trial Court is vested 'with the inherent power and has lawful authority to review or modify its interlocutory orders at any stage to address any consequent situation arising out of the circumstances of the case.
7. In this view of the matter, this appeal is devoid of merits and dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
I.A.Q. Dismissed.