1989SCMR340 (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Limitation‑‑Time barred revision dismissed on ground of limitation and on merits‑‑Writ petition challenging said order also likewise dismissed‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Point of condonation of delay as well as .nomination of petitioner on basis of which he claimed inheritance, raised before High Court and were properly attended to‑ Competent authority in its discretion not having condoned delay and on merits having found resolution passed by the Co‑operative Society in respect of nomination of petitioner as void, no_ interference was called for‑‑Petition dismissed. Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate -on-Record or Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 12th April, 1982 whereby the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that on 7th November 1948 materha ‑unc a of the petitioner namely Bashiruddin was allotted 100 kanals of agricultural land by respondent No. 3 (Co‑operative Farming Society, Chak No. 40/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari) under the Co‑operative Societies Act on having been made also a member of the Co‑operative Society. Bashiruddin was issueless. Consequently on 12th March, 1972 he nominated the petitioner under section 27 of the Co operative Societies Act read with the Rules. The petitioner. was also made a member of the Co‑operative Society on 18th December, 1972 after the death of Bashiruddin. The said Bashiruddin's widow and tenant over that land filed a suit in which the widow sought inheritance whereas the tenant sought his right of substitution. The Assistant Registrar (Respondent No. 2) vide his order dated 9th June, 1977 allowed the said land to respondents Nos. 4 and 5 in the ratio of 50:

50. The appeal of the petitioner before the Registrar was dismissed on 20th April, 1980. These orders were challenged by the petitioner before the Secretary (respondent No. 1) by way of a revision petition but it was dismissed as time barred as well as on merits. Thereafter writ petition was filed by the petitioner which was likewise dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the petitioner claimed inheritance exclusively on the ground that he was nominee of Bashiruddin under the bye‑laws of the concerned co‑operative society. We note that the point of condonation of delay in filing the revision before the Secretary as well as the point of nomination had been raised before the High Court and properly mended to. It has been held that the Secretary in his discretion did not A condone the delay. He even went into the merits of the case and found that the resolution of the society in respect of nomination of the petitioner was void. Since this is the position no interference is called for. The result is that this petition is dismissed. M.I./M‑559/S Petition dismissed.