The Alfallah Cinema is being run by the Pak Cinemas Limited, Lahore, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913. .A petition, C. O. 9 of 1975, for winding-up of the Company is pending in this Court. On a petition submitted for appointment of a provisional liquidator, an order was passed by this Court on the 2nd of July 1975 for appointment of a receiver. Mr. Mahmood Akhtar, one of the share--holders of the Company was appointed a receiver since he agreed to pay a monthly minimum guaranteed profit of Rs. 38,000 He was removed .From his office by an order dated 5-11-1975. By the same order Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate and Mr. Ilyas Khan, Advocate were appointed joint receivers to run the business of the Cinema. Later on Major Riaz Ahmad made an offer of Rs. 20,001 per month as minimum guaranteed profit provided he was given the charge of the Canteen and Cycle-stand also. This offer was accepted by an order dated 16-2-76. The joint receivers were relieved of their charge and Major Riaz Ahmad was appointed as a receiver. On the 23rd of February 1976 Major Riaz Ahmad submitted a report that after he had taken possession of the Canteen and the Cycle-stand, three respondents, namely Hamid Aziz Sheikh, Muhammad Amin and Ghulam Qadir secured some temporary injunction from the Civil Court restraining him (the Receiver) from illegally dispossessing them from the Canteen, Cycle-stand and Book-stall respectively and thereafter illegally took possession of the Canteen and the Cycle-stand. It was further stated in the report that the Canteen, Cycle-stand and the Book-stall were with Malik Mahmood Akhtar. The first receiver and the proceedings in the civil Court were possibly started with his connivance. In view of this report, notices were issued to all the re3pondents to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of this Court for having taken possession of the Cycle- stand, Canteen and the Book-stall. During the course of the proceedings, however, it came to my notice that the notice issued to Malik Mahmood Akhtar was not in accordance with the order passed by me. It was alleged in the notice sent to Malik Mahmood Akhtar that he had illegally delivered The possession of Canteen, Cycle-stand and Book-stall to Hamid Aziz Sheikh, Muhammad Amin and Gbulam Qadir respectively. A modified notice was therefore served upon Malik Mahmood Akhtar.
2. Contrary to the charge report Exb. P. 1 and the report of the receiver dated 23-2-1976 the respondents' plea is that Malik Mahmood Akbtar has not been in possession of the Canteen, Cycle- stand etc. ; on the other hand the other respondents have throughout been in possession during the tenure of the joint receivers and have never been dispossessed by the present receiver. The first question, therefore, is whether the receiver had taken over vacant possession of the Canteen and the Cycle-stand and he was dispossessed therefrom by the respondents.
3. The evidence of Major Riaz Ahmad proves beyond any shadow of doubt that after his appointment as a receiver he had taken over possession of the Canteen as well as the Cycle- stand. Only the show-cases of the Canteen were locked. He gave a contract of the Canteen and Cycle--stand to one Raees Ahmad who paid him a sum of Rs. 15,000 which has been deposited in the' account It is also established from his evidence that Raees Abmad had started his business not only in the Canteen but also on the Cycle-stand. In the garb of the injunction order secured by Hamid Aziz Sheikh and Malik Amin, they along with a number of persons dispossessed Raees Ahmad from the Canteen as well as the Cycle-stand and thus dispossessed the receiver. This evidence finds support from the statement of Abdul Rehman who stated that after taking over charge, the receiver had started business of the Canteen through one of his men and that man was removed by Hamid Aziz Sheikh. It is, therefore, a clear case where Hamid Aziz Sheikh and Malik Muhammad Amin have interfered with the possession of the receiver. These two persons, therefore, are undoubtedly guilty of contempt of Court.
4. The next question is whether the Canteen etc. Were in possession .Of Malik Mahmood Akhtar or they were in possession of other respondents. The evidence of the receiver, two joint receivers and Abdul Rehman, Manager of the Cinema was recorded in support of the report. I also recorded the statement of Malik Mahmood Akhtar for clarification of certain ;points. He did not produce any other evidence in rebuttal.
5. It is established by the statements of Mr. Ilyas Khan and Mian Nisar Ahmad that Malik Mahmood Akhtar had claimed before them that the was running the Canteen. Cycle-stand and Book-stall and was paying a sum of Rs. 2,500 per month for their use. These receivers made a quory from Hamid Aziz Sheikh respondent and those persons who were found by them actually working on the Book-stall, Cycle-stand and the Pan Shop from this inquiry it was established that Malik Mahmood Akhtar had not given up possession and had retained the possession of the Canteen, Cycle-stand, Book-stall and the Pan Shop despite his removal. Hamid Aziz Sheikh submitted an application Exh.
N. 2 to the receivers in which the admitted that he was running the Canteen for the last two months, on behalf of Malik Mahmood Akhtar. He further stated that he had not been paying any rent nor he entered into any contract regarding Canteen since he was working only as a helper (of Malik Mahmood Akhtar). In his statement Exh. P. 3 Asghar Ali, who runs the Pan Shop admitted that lie was a licensee under Muhammad Asbraf, the previous Canteen Contractor. After his departure he had been running the Pan Shop with the ;permission of Malik Mahmood Akhtar and he has been paying to him licence-fee at the rate of Rs. 5 per day. He had paid this fee to Malik Mahmood Akhtar up to the 2nd of November 1975. Ghulam Ali. Brother of Ghulam Qadir respondent who was formerly working on the Bo-)IC-stall stated in his statement Exh. P. 4 that he had no information anout the rent -of the shop since there was a contract between his elder brother and Malik Sahib (the reference obviously is to Malik Mahmood Akhtar). Malik Mahmood Akhtar in his own statement denied that he was in =possession of the Canteen etc. He admitted that when he was appointed receiver, the contract of the Canteen etc. Was held by Muhammad Latif, Muhammad Sharif and they paid Rs. 2,500 per month for it. These ,contractors gave up the contract. The contract of Canteen and Book-stall was then given to Hamid Aziz Sheikh who was paying Rs. 2,000 per month for it, but be did not give any writing to Hamid Aziz Sheikh nor obtained any writing from him. He did not know Ghulam Qadir respondent. He further stated that the Cycle-stand had throughout been with Muhammad Amin who had been paying Rs. 500 as rent. Although the case of Hamid Aziz 'Sheikh is that he had obtained the contract of the Canteen on the 6th of September 1975, but Malik Mahmood Akhtar stated that Ramid Aziz Sheikh was brought in on 6th of August 1975. He also stated that he had received three months rent from him. He was asked to explain why he turned out Muhammad Latif Muhammad Sharif from whom he was getting .a higher rent. He stated that he bad not turned them out but they had left of their own accord. It may be stated that Muhammad Latif, Muhammad Sharif submitted a complaint against Malik Mahmood Akhtar (C. M.
No. 99/1975 in C. O. No. 9/1975) on the 30th of September 1975 do which they had alleged that they were dispossessed from the Canteen on the 27th of August 1975 and all their crockery, utensils, furniture etc.. Had been taken in possession by Malik Mahmood Ahhtar. When the--respondent was asked to explain why this application was submitted by ex-contractors, if they had left their place of business of their own accord, he became evasive and gave no explanation.
6. Hamid Aziz Sheikh admitted having signed Exh. P. 2 but despite this be stated that he had been running the Canteen independently as a tenant and paying Rs. 2,000 per month. He stated it was he who had opened the locks of the show-cases in the Canteen with the keys in his possession. He also relied upon the grant of sugar quota permit Exh. D. 2,. Certificate of Mr. Saeed Karim Fazal dated 21st October 1795 about his possession Exh. D. 1, Licence for the Canteen Exh. D. 6, Licence receipt for the Canteen Exh. D. 3 and electricity Bills D. 4 and D.
5. This respondent, however, admitted that he had never obtained any receipt for payment of rent. According to him he had paid the rent to Malik Mahmood Akhtar who paid the same to the Accountant. He was asked to explain why he submitted and signed the application Exh. P.
2. He stated that he had signed that application on the instructions of Abdul Rehman, Manager who had informed him that the name of Malik Mahmood Akhtar was in the Accounts Books. This plea was, however, not put in, cross- examination to Abdul Rehman.
7. Malik Muhammad Amin respondent stated that he had been in possession of the Cycle-stand for the last 8/10 years and he had been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 500. In support of his plea about duration of his possession he produced photostat copies of certificates from, different occupants of parts of Alfallah Building. These are Exhs. D. 8 to, D.
14. He also admitted that he had no receipt of rent. He had been paying the rent to Malik Mahmood Akhtar and previous to that he used to pay rent to another contractor of the Canteen namely, Muhammad, Amin Butt.
8. Ghulam Qadir who claimed to be in possession of the Book-stall for the last six years stated that be had been paying rent at the rate of Rs. 150 per month to Malik Mahmood Akhtar. He admitted the signature of his brother Ghulam Ali Bhatti on Exh. P.
4. He also had no receipt of rent.
9. Exhibit P. 2 establishes that the Canteen was run by Hamid Aziz. Sheikh on behalf of and as an assistant of Malik Mahmood Akhtar. The: explanation given by Hamid Aziz Sheikh that this document was written at the instance of Abdul Rehman is not believable since this plea was not: put in cross-examination to Abdul Rehman. On the other hand it is proved from the statement of Abdul Rehman that the name of contractor or of Malik Mahmood Akhtar is not recorded in the Accounts Books. It was admitted' by Malik Mahmood Akhtar that he had received three months' rent. (obviously during the period of his receivership) from Hamid Aziz Sheikh and Muhammad Amin. In order to justify the receipt of three months" rent he stated that he had given the contract of Canteen to Hamid Aziz: Sheikh on the 6th of August 1975, although it appears clear from the statement Exh. P. 2 as well as from the certificate Exh. D. 1 that Hamid Aziz Sheikh is in the premises since 6th of September 1975. This also finds support from the Civil Miscellaneous No. 99 of 1975 instituted by the ex-Contractor Muhammad Sharif. According to the allegations in that petition Malik Mahmood Akhter had turned him out of the premises on the 27th of August 1975. Clearly therefore Malik Mahmood Akhtar had paid rent even after his removal. The statement of the receivers and Abdul Rehman that after the appointment of joint receivers, one month's rent was paid by Malik Mahmood Akhtar is therefore, proved to be correct.
There is no reason to doubt the statement of Mian Nisar Ahmad and Mr. Ilyas Khan that Malik Mahmood Akhtar had claimed and admitted before them that he was running the Canteen,cycle- stand etc. None of the other respondents had ever paid rent to the Company nor they have any receipt in their possession. They admitted having paid the rent to Malik Mahmood Akhtar. I have therefore, no doubt left in my mind that Malik Mahmood Akhtar has retained possession of the Canteen, Book-- stall, Cycle-stand and the Pan Shop even after his removal, but as a ,subterfuge he has obtained the permit of sugar quota and licence in thename of Hamid Aziz Sheikh.
10. I have already held that the business of the Canteen and their Cycle-stand was being run by Malik Mahmood Akhtar. Hamid Aziz Sheikh was only his helper and was doing business on his behalf. Malik Muhammad Amin was a sub-lessee of Malik Mahmood Akhtar and the latter ,was receiving a sum of Rs. 500 per month. In these circumstances ; it is hard to believe that Hamid Aziz Sheikh would act for the protection of any -of his interest because he does not have any such interest. He was acting ,for the protection of the interests of Malik Mahmood Akhtar. This evidence establishes that he has filed the suit and taken over possession of, the Canteen in collusion with Malik Mahmood Akhtar who is interested in keeping possession of this valuable property. It has already been noticed that on account of the valuable nature of the Canteen business, Malik Mahmood Akhtar turned out the ex-contractors Muhammad Latif Muhammad Sharif and started his business of the Canteen in the name of Hamid Aziz Sheikh on a paltry consideration of Rs. 2,000 per month for the site of the Canteen which Raees Ahmad has taken on a consideration of Rs.
14,000 per month. I am, therefore, satisfied that Malik Mahmood Akhtar has in the garb of the injunction order dispossessed the receiver through his friend Hamid Aziz Sheikh. He is also guilty of contempt of Court.
11. These respondents would still be guilty of contempt of Court even if it is held that they had never dispossessed the receiver. There is a specific order that the receiver shall have the charge of the Canteen and the Cycle-stand. The conduct of the respondents in obtaining temporary injunction from the civil Court is a measure to obstruct compliance with this order. And amounts to contempt.
It may be stated at this stag., that the injunction orders have been secured without disclosing in the body of ,the plaints that a receiver had been appointed by the High Court an4 he was authorised to take over possession of the Canteen and the Cycle-stand. The injunction orders however, do not stand in the way of the receiver :since they restrain him from ejecting the plaintiff illegally and not fro---, .Ejecting them under order of this Court.
12. It is conceded by the learned counsel for Hamid Aziz Sheikh and Malik Muhammad Amin that the suits could not be brought against the receiver without the permission of the Court. This concession is in accordance with law, although there is no statutory provision making it incumbent upon a plaintiff to seek permission of the Court who appoints receiver before instituting suit in regard to the property in possession of the Court, but such a permission is necessary for two reasons ; firstly the object is to avoid conflict of jurisdiction ; secondly the person who is instrumental in the passing of an order or decree which interferes with the possession of the receiver is rendered guilty of committing contempt of that Court which has appointed the receiver since the property being in custodia legis, the possession of the receiver is the possession of the Court and interference with the possession of the receiver is interference with the possession of the Court.
13. There is a consensus that a receiver cannot be sued without the permission of the Court which appointed him. In re : U. O. Maung v. Ebrahim (AIR 1928 Rang. 175), Mst. Mahrana Kuliwar v. E. V.
David (AIR 1924 All. 40), Shyam Lai Gornat--wala v. Nand Lai ana others (AIR 1944 All. 220), Henry Pound Son & Hutchins ((1889) 42 Ch. D 402), Nothard v. Proctor ((1875) 1 Ch. D 4), Nrishingha Charan Nandi Choudhry v. Thakur Ashutosh Deo Chalwal and others (AIR 1938 Pat. 487), Allahabad Bank Ltd., Lahore v. Raja Ram and others (AIR 1933 Lah. 671). In Japson v. James (1908)
77 L J Ch. 824the learned Lord Justice said "two points appear to me to be usual on considering whether the Court should have regard and refer to a jurisdiction with which it may come in conflict, or whether the Court can fairly expect that other jurisdiction to defer to it. One is the priority in time and the other is the extent of the relief asked for or obtainable in the other jurisdiction". This is the basis of the principle that a suit should be brought against a receiver only after the permission of the Court which appoints it. It was for this reason held in Sridhar Chowdhury v. Mughnirom Bargar and others (AIR 1924 Pat. 491), that it is of utmost importance that where concurrent proceedings for similar relief are taken) in two different and independent Courts, no order should be passed which, may lead to friction or conflict of jurisdiction. The question whether the action before a Court who appointed the receiver was a collusive action and whether the appointment of a receiver should be recalled, is for that Court to determine which appointed the receiver.
14. It is also established that the filing of suits with a view to obtain from the Civil Courts orders which may interfere with the power exercisable by the Receiver in complying with orders of the Court which appointed him amounts to contempt of Court. In Mangtulal Bagaria v. Daya Shanker Gobardhun Das Bhata and others (AIR 1936 Pat. 572) it was held that where the property is in the posse,,sicn of a receiver it cannot be sold in execution of a decree without the leave of the Court which appointed the receiver, the person who brings about the attachment and sale of a property in the possession of a receiver appointed by the Court is guilty of contempt of Court. Same view was taken in N. Abdul Rahim v. Lingappa Vaijappa Angrol and another (AIR 1943 Bom. 273), Dharnidhar Singha Roy v. Satish Chandra Giri (AIR 1932 Cal. 705) and Kilachand Devchand & Co. v.
Ajodhyoprasad Sukhanand and others (AIR 1934 Bom. 452). In Allahabad Bank Ltd., Lahore v. Raja Ram and other the High Court of Lahore held that where a receiver is appointed, his possession is that of the Court which appointed him and it cannot be disturbed without its leave. If any one, whoever he may be; disturbs the possession of the receiver he will be guilty of contempt of Court. It follows from this that when a receiver is appointed by one Court to take charge of any properties, another receiver cannot as a rule be appointed by a different Court to take possession of or exercise any control over the same properties . . . . . . . And such appointment would be obviously incon--sistent with the first appointment and result in a conflict of jurisdiction. In Tridibesh Basu v.
Jitendra Kumar Basu and another (AIR 1940 Cal. 487it was held that the defendant who took away a certain sum from the funds of family publishing business after the appointment of a receiver to receive all money due to the estate, was guilty of contempt of Court. In Jai Prakash Beni Pershad and others v. Ram Sarup and others (AIR 1958 Pb. 471) it was held that the Courts are, under duty to protect a receiver's possession not only against acts of violence or intimidation but even against suits at law. Where a Court having jurisdiction in the matter, appoints a receiver to take charge of the property forming the subject-matter of the litigation--- then no Court of co ordinate jurisdiction has any power or authority to interfere or meddle with the property in the hands of the receiver even if it is of opinion that the original order of appointment was erroneous or improvident.
If a person consequently disturbs the possession of the receiver, he is guilty of contempt of Court.
15. The respondents who filed the suits in the present case knew that a receiver had been appointed by this Court, but they not only filed suits without permission of this Court, but also did not mention in the body of their plaints the fact of appointment of receiver. Clearly, therefore, the suits were filed with a view to obtain injunction by concealment of the factum of appointment of a receiver by the High Court. The filing of the suits, therefore, is by itself contempt of this Court.
16. The remedy of the respondents was not to file suits in the civil Court and obtain injunction restraining the receiver appointed by this Court in a case pending on the original side of this Court, from virtually performing his duties as a receiver. The proper course for the respondents was to apply to this Court if they had any grievance against the receiver-- N'vruddha Ahmad v. Subodn Chandra Mitra (AIR 1925 Cal. 1174 .There is one more reason why the injunction order was not competent in this case. In my order appointing Major Riaz Ahmad as a receiver, I had made it clear that he was entitled to get the possession of the Canteen as well as the Cycle-stand. The injunction passed by the learned Civil Judge is virtually an injunction against the High Court which he is not competent to issue However, this point need not detain me since the injunction was to restraint the receiver from disturbing the possession. I have already held that the plaintiffs to the suits were not in possession of the Canteen or the Cycle-stand. The possession was of Malik Mahmood Akhtar. In any case this injunction) order was infructuous since the receiver was already in possession of the property and was not effective against him.
17. The respondents except Malik Mahmood Akhtar apologised for filing the suits without permission. Even if this apology is accepted it will not make any difference as regards Hamid Aziz Sheikh and Malik Muhammad Amin who have been found to have dispossessed the receiver after obtaining injunction from the Court.
18. There is no evidence of dispossessing the receiver against Ghulam Qadir. He is, therefore, discharged.
19. In my view all these three persons deserve the maximum sentence, but in view of the fact that Hamid Aziz Sheikh and Malik Muhammad Amin agreed to deliver possession of the Canteen and the ,Cycle-stand to the receiver and have delivered possession of the same on 27th of February 1976, I take a lenient view of this case, I sentence Malik Mahmood Akhtar to a fine of Rs. 1,501) or in default ` to undergo I .Simple imprisonment for a period of one and a half months. I sentence Hamid Aziz Sheikh to a fine of Rs. 1,000 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
I sentence Malik Muhammad Amin to a fine of Rs.500 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The fine shall be paid by the 7th of March 1976. ~9. A. P.Offenders sentenced to fines.