1970 PLP 674 (SCMR)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the West Pakistan High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 802 of 1969, decided on the 19th June 1969. By this order, the petition was dismissed in limine. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had obtained a loan of Rs. 37,'809.03 in connection with the running of his business known as Cheap Stationery Mart, Gunpat Road, Lahore, from the Pakistan Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd.. Lahore. The Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Lahore, on the 17th September 1966, issued a notice calling upon him to pay the sum of Rs. 48,484.03 inclusive of interest and law charges. On this, the petitioner made a representation which was held to be time‑barred and rejected. He challenged this order in a revision under section 64‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act, which was accepted by the Secretary, Co‑operative Department, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore, by order dated the 25th September 1967, and the case was remanded with the following observation :‑ "The applicant should have been given full opportunity to produce the partnership deed executed by Mr. M. Anwar or any other documentary evidence in support of his allegation. If it was proved to be correct, then it may amount to serious misconduct on his part amounting to misfeasance or misuse of funds for his own purpose, which may become a criminal act. It the applicant is not able to produce such documentary evidence then he would have no case vis‑a‑vis this loan and may proceed under the normal law for fraud etc., against the Bank official." On remand the petitioner submitted a long list of witnesses but the Deputy Registrar rejected his application on the ground to that the list of witnesses was vague and indefinite. He held that the petitioner had himself asked the Pakistan Industrial Co operative Bank Ltd., for the grant of facilities of Cash Credit by making payment of Rs. 25,000 on his behalf to the Australasia Bank Ltd., which was done and his goods was pledged with the former Bank. The allegation that the ex‑Manager of the Pakistan Industrial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., was a sleeping partner of his firm was held not proved by any document or evidence. It was held that the petitioner's liability was established. The petitioner challenged this order in revision but it was held that no revision was maintainable under section 64‑A of the West Pakistan Co‑operative Societies Act. The matter was then taken in the High Court and the High Court dismissed the writ petition with the following remarks:‑

"The Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, by the impugned order has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner had by a letter dated the 24th of February 1962, requested, the Pakistan Industrial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., Lahore, to grant him the facilities of each credit by making payment of Rs. 25,000 on his behalf to the Australasia Bank Ltd., Brandreth Road, Lahore, in order to enable him to clear the liabilities towards the Australasia Bank Ltd., in connection with certain stocks of stationery valuing about Rs. 10,000 lying in pledge with the said Bank and one R. R. relating to the stationery worth Rs. 19,635 received from Karachi. The petitioner has been found to have further advised the Pakistan Industrial Co operative Bank Ltd., to keep his said stock in pledge with the Bank against the said advance of Rs. 25,

000. It has also been held that the petitioner executed in favour of the Bank a pledge deed, a demand promissory‑note, a letter of waiver and a letter of continuity on the 10th of April 1962, for an amount of Rs. 30,000, categorically and unconditionally acknowledging his liabilities towards the Bank. The Deputy Registrar also recorded it as a finding of fact that there was no evidence to indicate that Malik M. Anwar, Manager, Pakistan Industrial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., had provided the marginal security to the Australasia Bank Ltd." They further held that the petitioner has derived tangible benefits from the transaction which he is now repudiating. They refused to interfere with the matter as they did not find any merit in the writ petition. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. In support of the petition, Mr. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged two points :‑ (i) that reasonable opportunity was not given to the petitioner under section 6 of the West Pakistan Co‑operative Societies and Co‑operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966, in pursuance of the order of the Government dated the 28th September 1967, (ii) that the revision was competent and the petitioner's valuable right was denied by the Government. The contentions raised by the learned counsel have not impressed us. In our opinion, sufficient opportunity has been given to the petitioner to meet the allegation against him. It was he, who wanted to prolong the proceedings and adopted dialatory tactics. The remedy of revision is not a vested right. Its exercise is dependant on the discretion of the Revisional authority. It is quite true that in the present case, it was held that no revision lies but this by itself is no ground to grant leave in this petition. The petitioner has in so many words admitted that the amount in ques tion was advanced by the respondent‑Bank as a loan. In these circumstances, the Deputy Registrar was perfectly justified in hold ing that the claim against the petitioner has been established. The grievance of the petitioner that Malik M. Anwar, Ex‑Manager of Pakistan Industrial Co‑operative Bank Ltd., was a sleeping partner of his firm and he has gained advantage by this transaction can be easily agitated in the civil Court. The petitioner, if so advised, can ask for contribution of the amount from the said gentleman. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed. Leave refused.