P L D 1982 Lahore 232 (PLP)

This civil revision has arisen out of a suit brought by the petitioner, Anjuman Jamia Ahli Hadith, Ram Gali No. 5, near Chowk Dalgaran, Lahore, against the respondents, Hafiz Abdul Qadir and two others, claiming a declaration to the effect that the respondents had nothing to do with the management of a mosque and certain other property which was being controlled by the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the management of the mosque and the property in dispute. The suit was resisted by the respondents inter alia on the ground that they were administrating the mosque and the property in question as office‑bearers of another organization known as Tanzeern Ahli Hadith, which was registered in 1952 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and that the said Anjuman (petitioner), which was subsequently registered in 1968 as a rival organization, was trying to intermeddle in the affairs of the said Tanzeem without any authority. With regard to these averments of the respondents it was pleaded by the petitioner that the above Tanzeem stood dissolved because number of its members had been reduced to less than seven and, therefore, it was non‑existent. It was pointed out by the petitioner that according to section I of the Societies Registration Act seven or more members were required for the registration of a Society. The view taken by the Civil Judge, who had heard the suit, was that a Society did not stand dissolved due to the reduction of its members. It was also held by him that the said Tanzeem was actually administrating the mosque and the property in dispute. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by the petitioner before an Additional District Judge had also failed. Hence this revision.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that according to section 1 of the Societies Registration Act, no Society could be registered unless the number of its members was at least seven and since four of the members of the said Tanzeem had died,. thereby reducing the number of its members to less than seven, it automatically seized to exist. It was frankly conceded by him that there was no precedent case to support the proposition propounded by him. He, however, tried to seek support from a case reported as Mst. Jatti v. Ban wari Lal and others A I R 1923 P C 136, which related to the dissolution of a partnership.

3. In the cited case, a partner had died and, therefore, it was held that dissolution of partnership bad taken place due to his demise. This view was taken on the basis of clause (c) of section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932 in which it is clearly laid down that the death of a partner shall dissolve a firm. There is no similar provision in the Societies Registration Act which deals with the registration of the Societies. So, the case of Mst. Jattl is of no help to the learned counsel. .

4. Provisions relating to the dissolution of a Society are incorporate in section 13 of the Societies Registration Act. It has not been laid down therein that if a member of the Society expires, the society would stand dissolved or that if number of its members is reduced to less than seven its dissolution shall take place. Section 1 of the said Act requires that there should be at least seven members of the Society before it can be registered but the existence of that much membership is not necessary for the continu?ance of the Society. I, therefore, endorse the view taken by the two Courts below that said Tanzeem which is now managing the mosque and the property? in dispute, does not stand dissolved due to the fact that presently the number of its members happens to be less than seven.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to challenge their findings of the trial Court on certain questions of facts. It appears that the said findings were not assailed before the learned appellate Court because the judgment of that Court does not make a mention of the fact that those B findings had been taken exception to by the petitioner who was appellant before the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner cannot, therefore,' be permitted to attack those findings at the stage of revision.

6. There is no force in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. L Q.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.