1976 PLP 513 (SCMR)

D. M: Awan, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th February 1974. ANWARUL HAQ. J.‑The petitioners had obtained certain loans from the Central Co‑operative Bank Limited, Pind Dadan Khan in the Jhelum District. As the amounts remained outstanding, proceedings were initiated against them by this Assistant Registrar. Co‑operative Societies under Martial Law Regulation 241, in the final notice issued by this officer a total demand of Rs. 46,798 was made in respect of all the tour loans said to have been taken by the petitioners front time to time, along with the interest which had accrued thereon. The petitioners challenged the legality of this notice by filing a Constitutional petition in the High Court at Lahore, but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 27th of November 1972. He observed that the petitioners had suppressed material facts with regard to the fourth loan taken by them on the basis of a promote dated the 2nd February 1972, and had also defaulted in paying the agreed instalments, as a result of which default the entire amount had become due. He. therefore, declined to give there any relief, but added that `the Assistant Registrar has, however, made a sporting offer to the petitioners to pay the amount and take back their property"'. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners filed an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, which has also been dismissed by a Division Bench by its order dated the 17th of April 1973. This order shows that when the matter came up before the Bench on the 30th of March 1973, the petitioners agreed to pay the outstanding amount by specified instalments, the first of which was payable on the 16th of April 1973. It appears, however, that the petitioners were not able to make the necessary payments, and consequently the matter again came up before the Bench on the 17th of April 1973, on which date the appeal was dismissed in limine. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the action taken by the Assistant Registrar of Co‑operative Societies was illegal and without lawful authority for the reason that the department had proceeded to attach and sell the entire holding of agricultural land of the petitioners, worth at least Rs. 4 lacs, whereas specified areas had been pledged with the Bank in respect of the various loans taken by the petitioners, and at best only those areas could be attached and sold. We consider that the liability being admitted, and the petitioners having agreed before the High Court to pay the outstanding amount by instalments, no justification exists for our interference in the matter. However, it is clear that the offer made by the Assistant Registrar of Co operative Societies before the learned Single Judge of the High Court can still be taken advantage of by the petitioners, as it was unconditional and does not appear to have been withdrawn by the department at any stage of the proceedings in the High Court. We are of the view that it would be to the advantage of both parties if the petitioners were to make payment of the outstanding amount without further delay, an ask the Co‑operative Bank for the restoration of the properties in term of the offer made by the Assistant Registrar. Such a course of action could end all future litigation between the parties. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.