Supreme Court Sets Strict Test For Appointing Receiver Over Disputed Property
UrduPoint
Published November 02, 2026 | 10:55 AM
A two-member bench said a receiver may be appointed only when immediate judicial intervention is indispensable to prevent loss, damage or unlawful transfer, distinguishing the remedy from a temporary injunction.
ISLAMABAD, (APP - UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 2nd Nov, 2026) The Supreme Court has ruled that the appointment of a receiver to protect disputed property is a stringent and extraordinary judicial measure, requiring proof of an imminent risk of loss, damage or unlawful transfer of the property. A receiver cannot be appointed merely at the request of a party to the dispute.
Judgment Highlights:
- The court distinguished between the legal requirements for a temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver.
- For a temporary injunction, an applicant must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss.
- For appointing a receiver, stronger legal grounds and a compelling need for immediate judicial intervention are required.
A case concerning a dispute over the dealership and inheritance shares of Kohinoor Petrol Pump in Hyderabad was heard by the court.
The dispute involved:
- Petitioners seeking declaration of rights and a permanent injunction regarding Kohinoor Petrol Pump.
- The trial court dismissing their application for a temporary injunction.
- An appellate court ordering the reopening of the petrol pump's seal and restraining interference in the dealership for six months.
- The Sindh High Court subsequently appointing the Nazir as receiver of Kohinoor Petroleum Service, Hyderabad.
Supreme Court's Decision:
- The primary issue before the appellate court was the dismissal of the application for a temporary injunction by the trial court.
- The High Court went beyond this issue and appointed a receiver, which was inconsistent with the primary question.
- The court emphasized that the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is meant to correct legal or jurisdictional errors and cannot be used for a fresh hearing or granting relief beyond the scope of the application.