1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--We propose to dispose of the above-noted six High Court Appeals by a common order as the question of law and facts involved herein are identical. In the above cases Mr. Asad Ali Bilgrami, the appellant, was appointed as the Official Liquidator in respect of six different investment companies, namely, Messrs United Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Messrs AIM International, Messrs Sheikh Sajjad Hussain and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., Messrs Zanco Corporation (Pvt.) Limited, Messrs Allied Syndicate (Registered) and Messrs Commercial Planners Limited, in proceedings initiated by the State Bank of Pakistan under section 43(2) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, for winding-up of these companies. In order to complete the narration of facts it will be appropriate to mention the dates of winding-up order and appointment of Mr. Asad All Bilgrami as the Official Liquidator in each case which is as follows:-{{TABLE}} No, of HCA Date of winding-up Order and appointment of Official Liquidator 96/90 5-12-1988 97/90 23-10-1988 98/1990 27-10-1988 99/1990 13-10-1988 153/1990 13-11-1988 154/1990 26-9-1981 ' It appears that during the course of winding-up proceedings of the above-mentioned companies the learned Judge in Chamber appointed respondent No,2 as the Joint Receiver alongwith the appellant in respect of these Companies. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in the above appeals is that neither the Official Liquidator (appellant) nor the State Bank of Pakistan (respondent Nci.1) was heard by the learned Judge in Chamber before appointing respondent No,2 as the Joint Official Liquidator of these Companies. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be correct. From the contents of the impugned order it is quite clear that the impugned orders appointing respondent No,2 as the Joint Official Liquidator in the above cases was passed by the learned Judge in Chamber without hearing the appellant and respondent No,1. It is also not clear from the impugned orders as to what were the reasons which .Persuaded the learned Judge in Chamber to appoint respondent No,2 as the Joint Liquidator alongwith the appellant in respect of these Companies.
2. ' We accordingly accept the above appeals and, set aside the impugned orders appointing respondent No,2 as the Joint Liquidator in the above cases. It is, however, left open to the learned Judge in Chamber, that if he still feels it necessary to appoint a Joint Liquidator in respect of these Companies he may pass such order in accordance with the law after hearing the parties.
3. ' There will be no order as to costs.