QAMAR RAZA SIDDIQI vs GHAYAS UD DIN KHAN AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court of Baluchistan. The petitioner had filed a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from recovering a decretal amount passed against him by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, alleging the claim to be false and fraudulent, but both the trial court and the appellate court dismissed his applications for interim relief, and the High Court dismissed his revision inter alia for lack of particulars regarding fraud. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's civil suit was barred under the relevant co-operative societies legislation given his role as secretary. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the petition was without merit, observing that the petitioner's claim was hit by section 54 read with section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, and that the plaint lacked proper particulars of fraud. The petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving the petitioner free to pursue other remedies available under the law.
- Whether a civil suit challenging a decree passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies is barred under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
- Is a plaintiff required to provide specific particulars of fraud in the plaint when alleging a fraudulent decree?
- Does section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 apply to suits by members whose claims fall under section 54 of the said Act?
- Section 54, Co-operative Societies Act 1925
- Section 70, Co-operative Societies Act 1925
- Section 50-A, Co-operative Societies Act 1925
ORDER
1. DORAB PATEL, J.-According to the suit filed by the petitioner, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Quetta, had passed a decree against him for Rs. 94,808.14. But according to the petitioner the claim against him was a false and fraudulent claim, therefore, he filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, against the respondents, for a permanent injunction to restrain them from recovering the decretal amount from him. Together with the suit he sought an interim injunction.
2. But as his application was dismissed, he filed an appeal in the District Court, Quetta, which was also dismissed. He then filed a revision in the High Court, Baluchistan, and this revision %as dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the plaint of the petitioner did not contain any particular of the fraud alleged by him. Hence this petition for leave.
3. The petitioner, who has argued in person, has not given proper particulars in his plaint of the fraud alleged by him, as rightly observed by Rashid, J.V Additionally, his dispute with the respondents arises out of the fact that he was the secretary of a co-operative society. As he contemplates other proceedings against the respondents, we would refrain from making an observation which would prejudge the case of the parties. Accordingly, we would only observe that as the petitioner was the secretary of a co-operative society and his dispute with the respondents arose out of the business of the co-operative society, his claim is hit by section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter called the "said Act") read with section 70--of the said Act. The petitioner submitted, however, that his suit was no hit because of section 50-A of the said Act. 1t is unnecessary for us to examine the effect of this section because the petitioner himself said that no winding-up proceeding had been instituted. He then referred us t section 70 of the Act, but this section does not help him because it is provision to cover suits by persons who are not members of a co-operative society and whose claim does not fall under section 54 of the said Act.
4. The petitioner then submitted that his case was supported by a judgment reported as 1970 D L C
684. As this judgment is not available, we have no means of knowing whether it supports the petitioner's case, and further the petitioner does not know whether there was in the East Pakistan Co-operative Societies Act any provision similar to section 70-A of the said Act.
5. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. The petitioner, however, states that he wishes to take other legal proceedings against the respondents. He is free to prosecute such remedies as are open to him under the law.