Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LTD. through Managing Director VS Respondent: WYNDHAM HOTEL and others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Khalid Mehmood Khan Title:LAHORE REGENCY (PRIVATE) LTD. through Managing Director vs WYNDHAM
HOTEL and others Case No.: F.A.O. No. 300 of 2013 Date of Judgment:2015-02-11 Reported As: 2016 YLR 304, 2016 CLD 579 Result: Appeal dismissed Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD KHALID MAHMOOD KHAN, J.---Through this First Appeal against Order, the appellant has assailed the order dated 13.3.2013 whereby the learned trial' court dismissed the appellant's two applications one under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and the other under Order XXXVII, Rule 5 and Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C. 2. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of damages allegedly sustained due to violation of a Letter of Intent dated 01.10.2010 executed between the appellant and respondents Nos.1 and 2. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been impleaded as party to the suit being the franchise holders of respondents Nos.1 and 2. The leaned trial court vide order dated 06.3.2012 deleted the names of respondents Nos.3 and 4 from the array of defendants. The revision against the said order has also been dismissed. The petitioner claims that respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the foreign companies doing their business abroad and are not maintaining any assets in Pakistan except the franchise fee payable by respondents Nos.3 and 4. The prayer in application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. is that in case the decree is passed the appellant will not be able to recover the same as respondents Nos.1 and 2 are not doing business in Pakistan. The appellant thus has prayed that in case the decree is passed and the same is not recovered, the appellant will suffer irreparable loss. Through the application under Order XXXVII, Rule 5 and Order XL, Rule 1, C.P.C. the appellant has prayed that the franchise fee payable to respondents Nos.1 and 2 be attached till the pendency of suit. 3. As the respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been deleted from the array of defendants and as such the case of appellant to the extent of attachment before judgment of franchise fee, is no more
---
## Page 2
proceed able. The appellant's suit is a suit for recovery of damages and the damages have been claimed against respondents Nos.1 and 2 only. In case the decree is passed, in that case the appellant may file an application for execution of decree for attachment or execution of decree against the franchise fee As far as the question of irreparable loss is concerned, the suit has not been decreed so far. and on probability the restraining order could not be passed. The appellant has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed.