2007 PLP 60 (CLC)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.

The petitioner, through the present petition, under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, has called in question order, dated 28-2-2006, whereby the Judicial Officer PCBL issued the award of Rs.10,52,16,076 against both the managements.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the impugned order was passed at the back of the petitioner, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. He adds that as the impugned order was not communicated to the petitioner and the copy was supplied late, therefore, delay in filing the petition may be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the present petition is barred by time, as the same was filed after four months of the passing of the impugned order, therefore, the same cannot be entertained. He adds that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in the present proceedings.

3. The petitioner has filed the application, under section 5 of the Limitation Act (C.M. No.3 of 2006) for condonation of delay in filing the parent application, on the ground that the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner and that delay in preparation of certified copy is on the part of the office and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for filing delayed petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Admittedly, the present petition was filed on 10-6-2006 to challenge order, dated 28-2-2006, thus, the petition in hand was filed after the lapse of four months from the date of order. Section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, as amended by Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 (Ordinance LIII of 1999), provides that a person, if aggrieved by an act or decision of the Cooperative Board, Chairman or his delegate, may within a period of sixty days apply to the Cooperative Judge, who may confirm, reverse, or modify the act or decision. It flows therefrom that the limitation period for filing a petition under section 11 of the Act before this Court is sixty days from the date of decision of the Judicial Officer. Examination of the provisions of the Act amply manifests that provision of section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993. No provision of Act of 1993 empowers a Cooperative Judge to entertain an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is indicative from bare perusal of section 5 of the Limitation Act that said section does not automatically apply to all enactments, but its application has to be specifically extended to the provision of any other enactment. Lahore High Court, in a case reported as Muhammad Hanif v. Collector/Deputy Commissioner Kasur and 2 others PLD 1982 Lah. 239, after examining the provisions of sections 5 and 29(2)(b) of the Limitation has held as under: "... The cumulative effect of these provisions of the Limitation Act is that section 5 thereof would not apply to a special enactment unless such an enactment contains an express provision extending thereto the application of section 5."

5. In view whereof, as the Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 does not contain any express provision extending c application of section 5, of Limitation Act, therefore, petitioner's application for condonation of delay cannot be entertained, thus, stands dismissed.

6. With the dismissal of application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the present petition is barred by time, therefore, the same is also dismissed having been filed beyond the period of limitation. No order as to costs. F.B./M-486/L Petition dismissed.