Find a Lawyer

‑Writ Petition No. 2088 of 1979, decided on 21st September, 1981.

West Pakistan Co‑operative Societies and Co‑operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance (XIV of 1966‑

‑‑ Ss. 3, 7 & 8‑Recovery of loans‑Order of Assistant Registrar holding no amount being due from petitioner upset by Registrar on ground of Assistant Registrar having unlawfully refused to accept audit , note and having not examined record of Society claiming arrears‑Finding of Registrar prima facie incorrect‑Allega tion as to Registrar's holding of no opportunity to prove its case having been given to Society not supported by contents of order of Registrar ‑ Assistant Registrar appearing to have applied his mind to case, considered evidence including accounts and given his finding thereafter, order of Registrar quashed and case remanded to be decided afresh.‑[Remand of case.

Iftikhar Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.

Ch. Mahmudul Hassan for Respondent No. 1.

Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 21st September, 1981.

The petitioner challenges the order dated 25th February, 1979 passed by the Registrar (respondent No. 1) on an appeal/revision petition filed by the respondent No. 2.

2. It is contended that respondent No. 2 had raised some demand against the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar under the West Pakistan Co‑operative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordi nance, 1966. A notice was consequently issued by the Assistant Registrar. He heard the parties and discharged the notice vide his order dated 19th June, 1974, on the ground that nothing was due against the petitioner. It was against that order that respondent No. 2 filed the appeal/revision which gave rise to the impugned order.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the findings of the Registrar that the Assistant Registrar unlawfully refused to accept the audit note and that he did not examine the record of the Society is, on the face of it incorrect. He has taken me to page 41 of the paper‑book and page 10 of the order where the Assistant Registrar after discussing the whole thing came to his conclusion. It is further shown from page 43 that he A did consider the books of the Society as well as the audit report, to come to the conclusion that neither was the audit report to be read in evidence being ex parte nor was there any other account showing the liability. H further states that the Registrar has in fact failed to exercise his jurisdiction in accordance with law inasmuch as that it was his duty to have decided the issue before him on the basis of the record before him.

4. The learned counsel for both the respondents have resisted the petition on the ground that the Registrar found as a fact that no opportunity had been allowed to the respondent No. 2 to prove his case. This however, is not supported by the contents of the order of the Registrar. The Assistant Registrar seems to have applied his mind to the case, considered the evidence including accounts and then gave his finding. Consequently, there is no option but to quash the order of the Registrar and send the case back to him to decide afresh.

In view of the above, the impugned order of the Registrar dated 25th February, 1979 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is sent back to him to consider the appeal/revision and to decide the same afresh in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.

K. M. A. Case remanded.