1988 PLP 251 (MLD)

(2) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the suit is barred under the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925? (4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped from challenging the compromise?

2. The learned trial Court gave its findings in negative on issues Nos. 1. 2 and 4, but found the suit to be barred under Section 54 of the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925, and therefore, rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C vide judgment dated 30‑4‑1977. The appeal of the applicant was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment dated 31‑5‑1981. Aggrieved by these two orders the applicant filed the present Revision Application.

3. The only point for consideration is, whether the Courts below have rightly held, that the suit was barred under section 54 of the Co‑Operative Societies Act, 1925 which is reproduced as under:‑‑ "S.

54. ARBITRATION. If any dispute touching the business of a society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its committee against the paid servants of society) arises:‑ (a) Between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member or; (b) Between members or members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer or agent or servant of the society or; (c) Between the society or its committee and any past or present members of the society or; (d) Between the society or its committee and any past or present officer or agent or servant of the society or a surety of such officer agent or servant whether such surety is or is not a member of the society. It shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee?

4. No doubt, the initial dispute between the parties touched the business of the society and was a dispute between the members and the society. The dispute was initially referred to the Registrar for arbitration, and the nominee of the Registrar passed the Award in 1966 in favour of respondent No. 1, directing the applicant to allot another plot of the same size to the respondent No.

1. The respondent No. 1, filed an execution application for execution of the said Award, which was dismissed by the learned VIIth Civil Judge vide order dated 31‑8‑1968, against which the respondent No. 1 pfeferred an appeal before the District Judge, Karachi. The Respondent No. 2, who was the General Secretary of the applicant at the time, entered into compromise, in terms of which the impugned order was passed under Order 23, Rule 3, C.P.C. In the suit, it was contended, that these orders were obtained by respondent No. 1 in collusion with the respondent No. 2 by practicing fraud and mis‑representation upon the Court. It would be clear, that the question before the Court was as to whether any fraud or mis‑representation was committed upon the Court, while obtaining the orders on the compromise application in the appeal. This dispute touches the proceedings before the Court and cannot be said to touch the business of the society. Furthermore, the prayer is for setting aside the said impugned order passed by a Court on the said grounds and such relief cannot be granted by the Registrar or his nominee to whom the Registrar may refer the matter for arbitration. The order/decree passed by the Court can only be set aside either in appeal or by the decree of the Court in such a suit. As such, in my opinion, the suit is not barred under section 54 of the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925, and the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are illegal and of no legal consequence, and are hereby set aside. The suit is remanded back to the trial Court for trial according to Law. MYH/T‑28/K Case reminded.