1984 PLP 1776 (CLC)

‑ S. 9‑A‑Martial Law Order, 1972 [Zone C] No. 241‑Constitu tion of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Revisional Authority dealing with case in perfunctory manner without considering number of documents produced by petitioner in support of his title to property‑‑None of contentions raised in Memorandum of revision discussed or touched in order‑Such a manifestly illegal order, held, liable to be quashed through judicial review. ‑‑ S. 9‑A read with Martial Law Order, 1972 [Zone C] No. 241‑Pro perty in dispute auctioned in favour of respondent Bank as a result of decision given in Revision by Registrar‑Such order being declared illegal and subsequent orders and proceedings based on such order, held, suffer from such infirmity‑Auction set aside subject to fresh decision in Revision. Date of bearing : 20th November, 1983, A firm by the name of Messrs Ghulam Farid Muhammad Latif, obtained a loan from Mandi Baha‑ud‑Din Branch of the Central Co‑operative Bank Limited Gujrat. On 31‑1‑1972, the amount of the loan stood at Rs. 2,41,013.31. The borrower‑firm consisted of only two partners namely Ghulam Farid and Muhammad Latif. Both of them died issueless before clearing the liability. In the recovery proceedings, commenced against them, their legal representatives including the petitioner, were brought on the record. For the recovery of the outstanding. amount, the property known as Star Oil Mills Factory Area, Faisalabad was attached under M. L. O. 241.

2. The petitioner who claims to be the owner of this property, filed objections against the attachment, which were adjudicated upon by the Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies Gujrat, by means of his order dated 9‑2‑1973. On evaluation of the evidence of the parties, he came to the conclusion that the property in question actually, belonged to the defaulter firm and Muhammad Nawaz petitioner was merely a Benamidar'. The latter's objections were thus, rejected. "Since all other heirs have already been proceeded against for recovery of the loan, I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order dated 9‑2‑1973 of Assistant Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Gujrat, and dismissed the revision petition." The validity of the order passed by the Registrar and the subsequent proceedings based thereon, have been called in question through this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the available record. This writ petition has got to be accepted on short ground that the revisional authority has dealt with the case in a perfunctory manner. The petitioner asserted that he was owner of the property and relied upon a number of documents in support of his title. On the other hand the Bank also adduced some evidence to substantiate that the petitioner was merely a name‑lender and that the property was actually owned by the borrower‑firm. Thus, the case involved adjudication of very valuable rights of both the parties. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the learned Registrar to have discussed the evidence brought by them on the record and advert to various objections raised by the petitioner to assail the validity of the orders of the Assistant Registrar. It is to be noticed that the remedy under section 9‑A of the Ordinance, is the only remedy available to a person aggrieved by the orders of the departmental authorities. Though this remedy has been categorized as a revision but by its very nature, it partakes the character of an appeal. It is discernible from the Memo: of revision that a variety of contentions had been raised by the petitioner to challenge the order, holding him as a `Benamidar'. None of these contentions have been discussed nay even touched in the impugned order. It does not embody even any reason for upholding the orders of the Assistant Registrar. Such a manifestly illegal order is liable to be quashed through judicial review.

5. During the hearing of the arguments it was held out to me that the property in dispute had already been disposed of through auction, before the decision of the petitioner's revision by the Registrar. However, while dictating the judgment I noticed that it was after the rejection of the peti tioner's revision that the property was auctioned in favour of the respon dent Bank for Rs. 3,00,

000. The learned counsel for the parties have been given another opportunity to address the Court, on the question of sustenance of the auction proceedings. In this behalf the stand of the learned counsel for the Bank was that as the order passed by the Assistant Registrar held the field, the auction need not be set aside. I am unable to agree with him. For the sustenance of the auction, it has got to be first adjudicated that the property in dispute vested to the defaulter firm or for that matter the deceased partners thereof. The order passed by the Assistant Registrar in this behalf, was subject to the final order of the revisional authority but the decision given by the latter has been found to be utterly illegal and without lawful authority. In law, all subsequent orders and the proceedings based on such an illegal and void order would suffer from the same infirmity.

6. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is accepted, the orders of the revisional authority and all subsequent orders passed and proceedings conducted on the footing thereof, are declared to have been passed and conducted without lawful authority. Consequently, the petitioner's revision petition shall be treated as pending and disposed of afresh in accordance with law. The attachment of the property already made shall, however, remain in force till the decision of the revision. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

6. Before parting with the case it may be observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner made a categorical statement at the Bar, that the petitioner would not lay any claim against the respondents including the Bank in consequence of the setting aside of the auction and the Bank's remaining hi possession of the property in dispute. M. B. A. Case remanded.