2000CLC517 (PLP)
SOCIETY LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000CLC517 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | SOCIETY LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000CLC517 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000CLC517 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000CLC517 (PLP) (SOCIETY LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SULTAN ALI and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Khizar Hayat Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 27th May, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 70‑‑‑Suit against society‑‑‑Two months' notice, requirement of‑‑ Scope‑‑‑All suits against society do not require notice but suit touching business of society cannot be filed without service of notice‑‑‑Issuance of two months' notice before filing of suit, touching business of society is mandatory. (b) Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 70‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, RAI ‑‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑‑Non‑issuance of notice two months prior to the filing of suit against 5ociiety‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery of damages against the petitioner/society without issuance of notice as required under S.70 of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925‑‑‑Trial Court dismissed application for the rejection of plaint filed by the petitioner/society‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Dispute between the parties pertained to business of the society and in the absence of the notice, the suit was not maintainable‑‑‑Provisions of S.70 of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 being mandatory in nature, where no such notice was ever served or claimed to have been issued, the plaint was liable to be rejected. Muhammad Ali Memorial Cooperative Housing Society v. Sayed Sibtey Hassan Kazmi PLD 1975 Kar. 428 and Messrs Sunshine Biscuits Ltd. v. Muhammad Hassan Lodhi and another PLD 1982 Lah. 189 ref. Respondent No. 1 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Khizar Hayat Khan for Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 in person. Date of hearing: 27th May, 1999. This civil revision arises from order, dated 8‑12‑1998 of the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, by which he rejected the application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C.
2. Respondent No. l filed a suit for recovery of Rs.10,00,000 against the petitioner and respondent No.2 (Sayed Bashirullah deceased, now represented by respondents Nos.2‑A to 2‑H). It was claimed that respondent No.2 was President of the Punjab Teachers Cooperative Housing Society Limited (petitioner No.l) while petitioner No‑2 was its Secretary. It was alleged that respondent No.1 retired from Pakistan Air Force on 28‑6‑1995 and received Rs.4,00,
000. It was added that respondents Nos.2 and 3 received Rs.1,54,567, for Plots Nos.ll and 108, Ferozabad Colony, and issued allotment letters but despite request of respondent No. 1, to give plots, the needful was not done. In this backdrop, suit for recovery of damages etc. was filed.
3. The suit was resisted, by the petitioners and respondent No.2 who took number of legal ot3ections, a separate application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. was filed and that no notice under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 was ever issued, two months before presentation of the plaint. In his reply, respondent No.1 did not claim issuance of notice but alleged that being non‑member of the Society, he was not required to give notice.
4. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application on the ground that provisions of section 10 were not mandatory and that the suit was maintainable. Against this order, the present revision petition has been filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard. Respondent No.1 has argued the case himself.
6. In the course of hearing of this petition, respondent No.1 did not deny that no notice under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act was served and maintained his earlier stand that he was not required under any law to serve such notice.
7. Under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies .Act, 1925, it is mandatory that two months before filing of suit, touching business of Society or pertaining to a dispute between. The Society and the plaintiff, a notice P should be served. It is true that all the suits against Society do not require notice but suit touching business of the Society cannot be filed without service of a notice. . Society, amongst others, deals with acquisition of property, plots and disposal thereof, members and nominee of members. Petitioners claim to have purchased plot from the Society. The dispute, thus, pertains to business of the Society 'and in the absence of a notice, it would not be maintainable. Provisions being mandatory in nature, the suit would E not lie before a notice is served in terms of section 70 of the Act. Reference can be made to Muhammad Ali Memorial Cooperative Housing Society v. Sayed Sibley Hassan Kazmi PLD 1975 Kar. 428 and Messrs Sunshine Biscuits Ltd. v. Muhammad Hassan Lodhi ahd another PLD 1982 Lah.
189. In the present case, no notice in. terms of section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 was ever served or claimed to have been issued, therefore, the. suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected.
8. Resultantly, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, application under Order 7, Rule 11 of C.P.C. is allowed and in consequence, the plaint in the suit of respondent No.1 is rejected. Respondent No.1 will, however, be at liberty to file fresh suit, after notice under section 70 of the Act.