The Supreme Court receiver ruling holds that naming a receiver to protect disputed property is a stringent and extraordinary judicial step. Proof of an imminent risk of loss, damage or unlawful transfer must be shown. A receiver cannot be appointed merely because one side in the dispute asks for it.
A two-member bench of Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Irfan Saadat Khan set out these principles while hearing a dispute over the dealership and inheritance shares of Kohinoor Petrol Pump in Hyderabad. The judgment, authored by Justice Mazhar, also explained how temporary injunctions differ from the appointment of a receiver.
What the court required
For a temporary injunction, an applicant must show a prima facie case (an arguable claim on the face of it), balance of convenience, and a likelihood of irreparable loss. Appointment of a receiver, the court said, needs stronger legal grounds and a compelling need for immediate judicial intervention. Such a step should be taken only when it becomes indispensable to preserve the disputed property.
The Supreme Court receiver ruling stressed that the High Court’s revisional powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the main civil procedure law) are meant to correct legal or jurisdictional errors by lower courts. They are not a licence for a fresh hearing of the whole case, or for relief beyond what the parties sought. A court cannot grant more than the parties asked for.
How the Hyderabad petrol pump case unfolded
The petitioners had gone to a civil court seeking a declaration of their rights and a permanent injunction over Kohinoor Petrol Pump. The trial court dismissed their temporary injunction application on 30 May 2025.
On 5 August 2025, the appellate court ordered the petrol pump’s seal reopened and restrained interference in the dealership for six months or until the case was finally decided. That order was conditional on depositing with the Nazir (court officer who holds money or property for the court) the sum said to represent Mrs Nisa Farhan Memon’s alleged 29.17 per cent share.
On 20 October 2025, the Sindh High Court set aside the appellate order and appointed the Nazir of the trial court as receiver of Kohinoor Petroleum Service, Hyderabad, to supervise its business affairs.
Why the Supreme Court disagreed
The Supreme Court said the main question before the appellate court was whether the trial court had been right to dismiss the temporary injunction application. The High Court went beyond that issue when it appointed a receiver.
The bench noted a clear inconsistency between the orders of the two subordinate courts and said the underlying dispute had not been properly examined. It also clarified that the inheritance-share fight was already pending before the trial court, and that deciding those shares conclusively at an interim stage would be inappropriate.
Timeline: what has happened so far
- 30 May 2025: Trial court dismisses the petitioners’ temporary injunction application over Kohinoor Petrol Pump.
- 5 August 2025: Appellate court orders the pump’s seal reopened and restrains dealership interference for six months or until final disposal, subject to depositing Mrs Nisa Farhan Memon’s alleged 29.17 per cent share with the Nazir.
- 20 October 2025: Sindh High Court sets aside that order and appoints the trial court’s Nazir as receiver of Kohinoor Petroleum Service, Hyderabad.
- 2 November 2025: Supreme Court lays down that receiver appointment is an extraordinary measure requiring proof of imminent risk, and that High Court revision cannot expand relief beyond the case before it.
Aasan alfaaz mein
Supreme Court ne kaha hai ke property pe receiver lagana aam baat nahi hai. Pehle yeh sabit karna zaroori hai ke property ko foran nuqsan, loss ya ghalat transfer ka khatra ho. Sirf ek party ke kehne se receiver nahi lagaya ja sakta. Hyderabad ke Kohinoor Petrol Pump case mein High Court ka receiver wala order is buniyad par nahi thehra.
