2006 PLP 3267 (YLR)

MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.--Present petition, under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Co-operative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, proceeds against order dated 21-9-2004, whereby the Judicial Officer dismissed petitioner's application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., for the rejection of the claim of PCBL.

2. The impugned order was passed on 21-9-2004, while the present petition was filed on 23-12-2004, therefore, the same is barred by time. The petitioners, acknowledging that the petition is barred by time, have filed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act (C.M. No.1 of 2004) for condonation of delay, on the ground that firstly they filed the revision petition against the impugned order, therefore, the delay in filing the parent petition be condoned.

3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Admittedly, the present petition was filed on 23-12-2004 to challenge order dated 21-9-2004. 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 Co-operative Board, Chairman or his delegate, may within a period of sixty days apply to the Co-operative Judge, who may confirm, reverse, or modify the act or decision. It flows therefrom that the limitation period for filing the 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 Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993. No provision of Act of 1993 empowers a Co-operative Judge to entertain the 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 .Lahore 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."

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

5. With the dismissal of application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the parent petition is barred by time, therefore, the same is also dismissed having been filed beyond the period of limitation. H.B.T./Z-40/L Petition dismissed.