The top court rules that appointing a receiver to manage disputed property is an extraordinary judicial measure, permissible only when there is an imminent threat of loss, damage or unlawful transfer.
Islamabad, November 2, 2026: The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that appointing a receiver to protect disputed property is an extraordinary judicial measure that requires compelling evidence of an imminent risk of loss, damage or unlawful transfer.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan established these principles while hearing a dispute concerning the dealership and inheritance shares of Kohinoor Petrol Pump in Hyderabad.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that the legal requirements for granting a temporary injunction differ from those governing 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. However, appointing a receiver requires stronger grounds and an immediate need for judicial intervention. A receiver cannot be appointed simply because one party requests it.
The dispute arose after petitioners approached a civil court seeking a declaration of their rights and a permanent injunction concerning the petrol pump.
The trial court dismissed their application for a temporary injunction on May 30, 2025. However, an appellate court on August 5, 2025, ordered the reopening of the petrol pump’s seal and restrained interference in its dealership for six months or until the final disposal of the case.
The order required the alleged 29.17 per cent share of Mrs Nisa Farhan Memon to be deposited with the court’s Nazir.
Subsequently, on October 20, 2025, the Sindh High Court set aside the appellate court’s order and appointed the trial court’s Nazir as receiver of Kohinoor Petroleum Service in Hyderabad to supervise its business affairs.
The Supreme Court observed that the appellate proceedings were limited to examining whether the trial court had correctly dismissed the temporary injunction application. However, the High Court exceeded that scope by appointing a receiver.
The judgment also clarified that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is intended to correct legal and jurisdictional errors, not conduct a fresh hearing or grant relief beyond the scope of the proceedings.
The court further observed that the inheritance dispute remained pending before the trial court and that determining the parties’ respective shares at an interim stage would be inappropriate.
Authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, the judgment emphasised that appointing a receiver must remain an exceptional measure, used only when indispensable to preserve disputed property.