Mst. Ghulam Sughran has sued her brother for administration of the estate of their deceased father. Therein she also applied for appointment of a receiver of the property in suit but the trial Court turned down her plea by order dated 23-7-1988 for the reason that the defendant does not happen to be any stranger and holds title in the major share so that, rather than damaging it, he is likely to take more care of the property. It seems that learned Judge had in his mind the restriction appearing in sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XL of the C.P.C.
2. Plaintiff intended to challenge the trial Court's order and maintained an appeal in the District Court at Gujranwala which came to be returned to her on 6-6-1989 on the basis of order dated 4- 6-1989 (not available herein) passed by a learned Additional District Judge for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. This FA.O. Has been maintained now, on 13-6-1989 against the trial Court's order dated 23-7--1988 and is accompanied by a petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act to have the limitation condoned with reference to her returned appeal in the District Court but neither has the returned appeal itself been presented herewith nor has it even been alleged that some bona fide mistake may have been committed in filing that appeal in the District Court and even a copy of the order dated 4-6--1989 passed by learned Additional District Judge has not been filed; instead whereof, a copy of the particulars of return has been filed. In that situation, it is not possible to extend any benefit to her under Section 5 of the Limitation Act due to absence of any averment about sufficiency of cause for condonation and even Section 14 thereof cannot be called to her aid.
Since, this is a new appeal, therefore, it has to be governed by its own limitation under Article 156, thereof. It is hopelessly time-barred there under.
3. Even otherwise, plea for appointment of receiver is totally illconceived in the circumstances of this case and has been rightly rejected for the reason of its falling under sub-rule (2) of the Rule 1 of Order XL of the C.P.C. The parties are co-sharers and it is well-settled that a co-sharer in possession of a joint property 1 is not liable to be ousted there from, except on a partition by metes and bounds taking place between the co-sharers. Out of several authorities available on the point, reference may usefully be made only to Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9, Saadullah Khan and 6 others v. Mir Piayo Khan and 14 others PLD 1970 Pesh.150. -
4. This first appeal is altogether devoid of substance and is not worthy of being admitted to regular hearing. It is, hence, dismissed in limine.