1970 PLP 531 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema, respondent No. 1, on the 20th January 1962, deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000 with the petitioner's society. The petitioner's society failed to pay this amount. Respondent No. 1, thereupon, moved an application before the Registrar, Co‑operative Society, to refer the dispute between the parties for arbitration under section 54 of the Sind Co‑operative Societies Act. The Assistant Registrar, who was appointed as nominee, gave an award in favour of respondent No. 1 on the 26th March 1968. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order but he was unsuccessful. His revision was also dismissed by the Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Co‑operative Department. His Writ Petition No. 1069/69 was also dismissed by the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, on the 15th July 1969. On the 5th April 1969, respondent No. 1 filed an application for the execution of the decree which was given in his favour. The petitioner raised an objection that the same cannot be executed because the claim was barred by limitation. This objection was rejected on the 24th January 1970. Appeal filed before the Registrar was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has exhausted all the remedies available to him under the Act. This objection was raised before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 336 of 1970 but it was dismissed on the 6th March 1970. The High Court of West Pakistan held that in execution of a decree the Court cannot go behind the decree itself, unless the decree is a nullity for some reason. It observed that the question of limitation, even if it was not properly appreciated by the Court or the authority which passes an order, does not render the decree or an order or an award, a nullity. The executing Court had no jurisdiction to go behind the award. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. In support of the petition, Kh. Shaukat Ali Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged two points. In the first place, the learned counsel has contended that the dispute between the parties does not fall within the definition of the "dispute" in Sind Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925. He further contended that the claim of the respondent No. 1 was barred by time and it was open to the petitioner to agitate this question in execution of the decree. None of the points raised by the petitioner has any force. It is not disputed that respondent No. 1 is a past member of the petitioner's society. Under section 54 of the Sind Co‑operative Societies Act, dispute between a society and a past member can be referred to an arbitrator. Secondly, if 'the claim of respondent No. 1 was barred by limitation, the petitioner should have raised this point before the arbitrator. He did not raise any such point before the arbitrator. Even if the claim is barred by time any award based on it cannot be considered to be a nullity in the eye of law. The High Court was perfectly justified in observing that the executing Court cannot go behind the award or decree simply on the allegation that the original claim was barred by time. There is no force in the petition. The petition dismissed. Leave refused.