ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.---- The instant constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islam ic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution") carries the following prayer: "It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside both the impugned orders dated 21-11-2019 and 31-12-2019 passed by the learned trial court and revisional court and to accept the application under Order XL, Rule 1 read with section 151, C. P. C and application under Order I, Rule 10 read with section 151, C.P .C. both filed by the petitioners and other relief in the interest of justice and equity ."
2. Succinctly , facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintif fs filed a civil suit against the respondents/defendants before learned Judicial Magistrate-IV/C ivil Judge, Pishin (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") for declaration, possession through partition, cancellation of mutation No. 253, mesni profit, consequential relief and permanent injunction with the following prayer: a. To declare that the 'plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 16 are the legal heirs of .Ubaidullah (late) son of Muhammad Ameen (late) and they are legally entitled to get their due shari shares of the properties details whereof mentioned in paras Nos.3, 4 and 5. b. To declare that the plaintiffs and private defendants are lawful owners/co-sharer s in ancestral properties/subject matter and the plaintiffs are entitled for their due shares as prescribed under the law of inheritance/Muhammadan law. c. To declare that the subject matter including the shops/quarters are the joint ownership of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 16. d. To declare that the plaintiff are entitled for mesni profit from the year 2014 to April 2019 till disposal of the suit and onwards as per their shari shares according to Shariat/law of inheritance/Muhammadan law . e. To direct the defendants Nos. I to 7, 13 to pay the amount recovered on account of rent of shops / houses / tower and agricultural income as mesni profit as per their shari shares according to Muhammadan law to the plaintiffs. f. By means of mandatory injunction, the official defendants be directed to partition the ancestral properties / subject matter including shops, houses etc by meets and bounds and further plaintiffs and private defendants be put in possession of their respective shari shares, in case of failure of private defendants the official defendants be directed to partition the ancestral properties / land and handover the vacant possession to the plaintiffs as per shari shares of plaintiffs, while also directed the official defendants to also partition the shops, houses etc, among all the legal heirs i.e. plaintiffs and private defendants as per their shari shares. g. By means of permanent injunction, the private defendants be restrained not to transfer , alienate, sell, exchange, change the nature, mortgage, involve the interest of third party in the suit properties till final disposal of the suit.
To direct the official defendants to cancel the fake, void, illegal and forged mutation No. 253 and declare the said mutation, as illegal, fake and void and cancel the agreements if any have been executed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 7, 13 on their behalf with other persons. i. To declare that the plaintiffs are entitled for their shares in the left over ancestral properties of deceased Ubaidullah (late) son of Muhammad Ameen (late) under the Shariat Laws / Muhammadan Law of inheritance.
To direct the official defendants to correct the revenue record by mentioning the names of plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 8 to 12, 14 to 16 as legal heirs of Ubaidullah (late) son of Muhammad Ameen (late). k. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances, cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of plaintiffs against the defendants in the interest of justice. l. Relief".
3. The suit was contested by the private respondents/defendants by means of filing written statement on legal as well as factual grounds and denied the claim of the petitioners/plaintif fs.
4. During pendency of the suit the petitioners/plaintif fs filed two separate applicatio ns under Order XL, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for appointment of receiver and application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. for impleading the Technical Head/Manager Telenor Company Telecommunication as defendant to the proceedings. Both the applications were contested by the private respondents/defendants by means of filing rejoinder .
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial court dismissed both the applications vide order dated 21st November , 2019.
6. Being aggrieved from the order dated 21st November , 2019, passed by the trial court, the petitioners/plaintif fs preferred revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. before learned District Judge, Pishin (hereinafter referred to as "the revisional court" ), but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 31st December , 2019 (both the orders are hereinafter referred to as "the impugned orders"). Hence, this petition.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the available record.
8. The law is well-settled on the question of appointment of receiver , that a Civil Court has got jurisdiction to appoint receiver of the suit property , in order to protect and preserve the same, pending judicial determination, however , such discretion has to be exercised judiciously by following the norms of the law to protect the rights of the citizens.
The party seeking relief of the appointment of receiver is under a legal obligation to make out a prima facie case and establish his prima facie title to the suit property . Such party has also to show that the suit property would be wasted, misappropriated and destroyed if the receiver is not appointed. Even apprehension of mismanagement or misappropriation alone would not be sufficient to call for appointment of a receiver . It is also a well settled proposition of law that appointment of receiver is the harshest remedy provided under the law of C.P.C., which would tantamount to dispossessing a person, who is already in possession of the said property , therefore, it is to be used sparingly .
9. The power of the Court under Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C. could only be exercised when Court comes to the conclusion, on the basis of the material placed before it, that it is just and convenient to appoint the receiver to preserve and protect the property during the pendency of litigation between the parties. The words "just and convenient" used in the Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C. have to be interpreted depending upon the facts of each case.
These words denote convenience of the party and not that of the Court. In the instant case the property in dispute is, admittedly , in possession of the respondents and the revenue entries are also in their names. The defendants have pleaded private partition. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be just and convenient to appoint a receiver depriving the defendants from the usufruct of the properties. The petitioners have yet to prove their contention at the trial.
10. The petitioners have failed to show any emergency and loss demanding immediate action for appointment of receiver .
11. As far as the application filed by the petitioners/plaintif fs under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. is concerned, which was filed to implead the Technical Head/Manager Telenor Company Telecommunication as defendant to the proceedings. As per pleading of the parties, the piece of land (subject matter) was rented out by the respondent/defendant Nos. 1 to 7 and 13 through respondent/defendant No. 1 to Telenor Company Telecommunication for installation of Telenor tower and the Telenor Company Telecommunication installed its tower in the month of April 2016, who also paid the rent of Rs.40,000/- per month to respondent/defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and 13 through respondent/defendant No. 1. In this regard an agreement was executed between the Telenor Company Telecommunication and respondent/defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and 13, which is in possession of the respondent/defendant No. 1. The Telenor Company Telecommunication is not necessary party or proper party in the instant case as only a piece of land has been rented out to Telenor Company Telecommunication and it is not a shareholder of the subject matter .
12. The findings of both the Courts below are not suf fering from any illegality or irregularity .
The petition being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine with no order as to cost.