P L D 1956 (W (PLP)

INAMULLAH J.--‑This is an application under O. XXXVIII, rule 5 Civil P. C. for attachment of Rs. 5,330 lying in the National Bank of India, and arises under the following circumstances The plaintiff is a firm, while the defendant No. 1 is the Chairman of the Oriental Co‑operative Bank Limited and the defendant No. 2 is the Director of the said Bank. The plaintiff had a current account in the said Bank. The balance to his credit in the current account, according to the plaintiff was Rs. 5,330 on the date the suit was filed. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the Oriental Co‑operative Bank Limited was not properly registered as required by the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925, and therefore, the provisions of the Act did not debar the plaintiff from filing the present suit against the defendants. The plaintiff sued the defendants, as would appear from the plaint, on behalf of all the Members of the Oriental Co‑operative Bank Limited. An application tinder O. I, rule 8, Civil P. C. was also made to the same effect, and the same has been granted by the Additional Registrar (O. S.) The plaintiff, as would appear from the plaint, went to the Bank to cash a cheque for Rs. 5,330 on 23rd March 1955 but was told by a Chowkidar of the Bank that the Bank had gone into liquidation. I have heard Mr. Nasim for the plaintiff Mr. Azmatullah for defendant 1 and Mr. Ishaq for defendant 2 at some length. The contention of the learned Advocate for the defendants was that the suit was not maintainable in view of sections 51 and 70 of the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925. Section 51 debars a suit after the winding up order has been passed and section 70 requires that a notice should be given to the Registrar of the Co‑operative Societies and that a suit can be filed only after expiry of two months from the date the notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar. The provisions of these sections will have relevancy only if the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act 1925 were to apply. The contention of Mr. Nasim for the plaintiff, as already mentioned, was that the Act does not apply inasmuch as the registration of the Bank was not in accordance with the requirements of the Act. I would consider this contention in some detail. Section 3 (e) defines `Society' as under :‑ ?`Society' means a society registered or deemed to be registered under this Act." The power of registration has been given to the Registrar under section 10 of the Act and section 4 gives power to the Provincial Government to appoint a person to bed the Registrar of Co‑operative Societies. It may be mentioned at the very outset that though Section 4 of the Act requires the appointment of the Registrar to be made by the Provincial Government, but in the present case, by virtue of Government of Pakistan Notification No. F. 3‑101/49‑C. S. dated 9th October 1950, published in the Gazette of Pakistan on 13th October 1950, the appointment could be made by the Central Government. The notification reads as under :‑ "With reference to section 5 of the Pakistan (Establish?ment of the Federal Capital) Order, 1948, and in partial modification of Government of Pakistan Notification No. 112A/48/Kar, dated the 23rd July 1948, the Central Government is pleased to withdraw from the Administrator of Karachi, the powers and duties conferred or imposed on him in relation to the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act. 1945, by virtue of the said modification, and itself to assume all the powers and duties of the Provincial Govern?ment under the said Act." I may here state, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Azmatullah the learned Advocate for defendant No. 1, that there is a mistake in the printing of the Notification so far as the year of the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act is concerned ; the year of the said Act is 1925, and not 1945 as printed in the Gazette. In the present case, Mr. I. M. Khan has registered the Oriental Co‑operative Bank Limited under section 10 of the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925, as would appear from the Certificate of Registration dated 12th September 1951. It was conceded in the circumstances of the present case that the Central Government by virtue of their Notification dated 9th October 1950, could appoint the Registrar of Co‑operative Societies, Mr. Nasim however, contended that in the present case, Mr. I. M. Khan who registered the Bank under the Act was not validly appointed by the Central Government. The notification appointing Mr. I. M. Knan as Registrar of Co‑operative Societies is dated 16th June 1952, and reads as under :‑ "GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Ministry of Food and Agriculture, (Agriculture Division) Karachi, the 16th June 1952 No. F. 3‑65/51‑CS., Dr. Ihsan Muhammad Khan, Deputy Co‑operation and Marketing Adviser in the Co‑operation and Marketing Department, is appointed to hold charge of the post of Co‑operation and Marketing Adviser and Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Karachi in that Depart?ment in addition to his own, with effect from the 17th July to the 16th November 1951. (Sd.) M. H. SUFI Deputy Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. The contention is that on a perusal of the above noti?fication the appointment of Dr. I. M. Khan does not purport to have been made by the Central Government. It has on the face of it been made by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. The question is whether the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Pakistan has any such power to appoint. In this connection, reliance has been placed on behalf of the defendants on section 17 of the Government of India Act, 1935. The contention of the learned Advocates for the defendants is that this notification of 16th June 1952,, appointing Mr. I. M. Khan as Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, should be taken to be a valid one, as it is authenticated by the Deputy Secretary to the Govern?ment of Pakistan, and that for all intents and purposes it should be deemed to be made in the name of the Governor?General. Mr. Nasim, for the plaintiff, has relied on the case of Qamruzzaman Khan v. The Province of Punjab (P L D 1955 Lah. 612). In that case also a certain act which was done by the Secretary was sought to be construed as having been done on behalf of the Central Government, but on the interpretation of section 17 of the Government of India Act, 1935, it was held that it was bad in law. So far as this question is concerned, when an act is required by law to be done in the name of as certain person. then unless the order or notification so reads A no presumption can under law be drawn. The notification of 16th June 1952, does not mention that it had been issued in the name of the Central Government as required by the notification of 9th October 1950. I cannot read the words "Central Government" in the notification of 16th June 1952, appointing Mr. I. M. Klan as the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies. It may be a technical objection, but it goes to the very root of the case. The executive must comply with the rule of the law. In the present case, I may mention that Mr. Soofi, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, must have been conferred certain powers to do certain acts in his own right as Deputy Secretary to the Government of Pakistan. On the reading of the notification appointing Mr. I. M. Khan as the Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, one cannot say whether he has done so under his own powers, or on behalf of the Central Government. Mr. Azmatullah, the learned Advocate for the defendant I, however, contended that even though it may be taken for the sake of argument that the appointment of Mr. I. M. Khan as Registrar, Co‑operative Societies was bad, the words "deemed to be registered under this Act" in section 3 (1) (e) would include the registration of the Oriental Co‑operative Bank Limited to be a valid registration. Subsection (1) (e) of section 3 of the Act reads as under :‑‑ " `Society' means a society registered or deemed to be registered under this Act." The contention of Mr. Azmatullah was that the words "deemed to be registered" were put by the legislature in order to meet such defects in the registration of a society. Mr. Azmatullah, the learned Advocate for defendant 1, relied on the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay v. Bambay Trust Co‑operation Limited (A I R 1930 P C 54), where their Lordships of the Privy Council observed to the following effect :‑ "When a person is 'deemed to be' something the only meaning possible is that whereas he is not in reality that something, the Act requires him to be treated as if he were." In reply to this contention, Mr. Nasim, on behalf of the plaintiff, relied on section 72 of the Act ; he argued that the words "deemed to be" have reference to section 72 G‑f the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act 1925, and cannot be given any further extended meaning. The relevant portion is sub?section (1) of section 72 of the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act 1925, which reads as under :‑ "Every society now existing which has been registered under the Co‑operative Credit Societies Act, 1904 (X of 1904) or under the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1912 (II of 1912) shall be deemed to be registered under this Act, and its bye‑laws shall, so far as the same are not inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act, continue in force until altered or rescinded. In my opinion, the contention of Mr. Nasim has great force, and the words "deemed to be" given in clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925 have reference to section 72 (1) of the Act. R The rule of interpretation is that every provision contained in a particular enactment should be read together. In the present case, in my opinion, the words "deemed to be" have reference to similar words in section 72 of the Act. For the reasons given above, I am of the opinion that the suit is not barred by the provisions of sections 51 and 70 of Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925. On the merit of the application under O. XXXVIII rule 5, Civil P. C., except the above legal contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the defendants, no other point has been urged why the attachment should not be made. Mr. Ishaq, the learned Advocate for defendant 2 has, however, urged that the plaintiff is estopped from raising this point, He has also further urged that the other creditors of the Bank should also have been joined by the plaintiff. I do not consider there is much force in these contentions. The question of estoppel would not arise where the order passed is illegal and void on the face of it. So far as the question of bringing the creditors of the bank is concerned the creditors have every right to institute separate suits, and the plaintiff is not obliged to sue on behalf of all the creditors. For the reasons given above, I would make the interim attachment order absolute. A. H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Interim attachment ordered.