1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order dated 5th of July 1978 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore whereby he dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous No. 66-L of 1978 in Civil Original No. 35 of 1978 filed by the petitioners herein under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The relevant facts in brief are that in October 1976, the Eastern Company (Private) Limited was duly incorporated with four persons, namely Malik Sarfraz Khan (deceased)' his wife Mst. Gul Begum respondent No. 1, Sheikh Kausar Salam and Mrs. Kausar Malik petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 as the promoters-cum-Directors of the Company. Malik Sarfraz Khan died on the 7th of December 1977 leaving behind the respondent and petitioner No. 3 as his legal heirs. After his death differences and disputes appear to have arisen between the parties concerning the business of the Company.
3. The respondents then filed the application (Civil Original No. 35 of 1978) under section 162 of the Companies Act in the High Court of Lahore for winding up of the Company on a number of grounds taken by them. The petitioners in their written statement raised a preliminary objection and also filed a separate application (C. Misc. No. 66-L of 1978) under section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure to the effect that the respondents had no locus standi to file the petition for the winding up of the Company which was incompetent. The learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the application and overruled the preliminary objection by his order dated 5th of July 1978. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal against it.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that the application for winding up of the Company is based on the allegations that the petitioners therein are the shareholders, contributories and creditors of the Company Respondent No. 1 laid her claim as a Director as well as shareholder of the Company holding 500 shares in her own right. Shy along with the other heirs of Malik Sarfraz Khan deceased succeeded to another 500 shares forming part of the estate of the deceased for which the respondent No. 5 had already obtained a succession certificate. It was pointed out that respondent No. 1 had not only paid her share money, but also paid lakhs of rupees to the Company for its business at the initial stage. It was also contended that all the respondents were the contributaries of the Company within the meanings of sections 158 and 160 of the Companies Act. Lastly it was argued before the High Court that as shareholders or contributaries and, also as creditors of the Company the present respondents had the locus standi to sue for the winding up of the Company.
5. "The averment in para. 2 of the petition has been clearly made in order to justify the position of the petitioners as creditors of the Company. In view of this allegation also the petition cannot be thrown out at this stage. No doubt the question whether the petitioners are creditors or not, can be decided only after the trial of the case and the recording of evidence."
6. This conclusion also seems to flow from para. 12 of the order in that the Court proceeded to repel the preliminary objection in the light of the allegations in the winding-up petition.
7. With these remarks, we find that this petition for special leave has no force and is hereby dismissed.