Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. C-18 of 1980, decided on 3rd February,1981.(On. appeal from order dated 9-7-1980 of the Baluchistan High Court in Civil Revision No. 17 of 1980).
----Ss. 20, 50-A, 70 & 70-A-Petitioner not giving proper particulars in his plaint of frauds alleged by him-Petitioner being Secretary of a Co operative Society and his dispute with respondents coming out of busi ness of co-operative society, his claim, held, bit by S. 24, Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 read with S. 20-A of such Act-No winding proceedings having been instituted, petitioner's suit, held further, cannot be said to have not been hit by S. 50-A of Act-Section 70 of Act being a provision to cover suits by persons not members of a Co-operative Society and whose claim not covered under S. 54 of Act. held still further, also of no avail to petitioner.
Shamsuddin Khan v. Shantsuddln 1970 D L C 684 ref.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 3rd February, 1981.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer