HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARCHI

Suit No.156/2007

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date                                     Order with signature of Judge

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.                  For hearing of CMA No.2442/08

2.                  For issues.

---------------------------------------------------

13.4.2009

                        Mr. Mehmood Hussain, advocate for the plaintiff.

                        Mr. Shahnawaz M. Sahito, advocate for the defendant.

>>>><<<< 

 

            This is an application (CMA No.2442/08) under order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by learned counsel for the defendant praying therein for rejection the plaint on the ground that the instant suit is barred by section 70 A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925, which provides that the matter touching the business of societies would not be maintainable/entertain able by any other court, except the Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed counter affidavit to the above application whereby denying that the suit is barred by section 70-A of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.  It is further submitted that defendant claimed that the plot in question had been cancelled and prior to the transaction taken place between plaintiff and owner of the plot in question, subsequently transaction between plaintiff and defendant in the context of this suit is out of the purview of Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act.

            Facts of the plaintiff's case in brief are that plaintiff's Successor-in- interest, Naseem Fatima widow of Syed Sarder Haider purchased the plot bearing No.11-A-N/1, (Old No.9), Project No.II, from Muhammad Farooq son of Muhammad Saeed Khan, on 30.8.2004. It was further pleaded that successor in interest in the plaint paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- through Pay order No.0005557 drawn on Bank Alfalah Limited Karachi out of sale consideration of Rs.6,50,000/- . It is further pleaded that deceased Naseem Fatima deposited charges with the defendant (the controlling authority) towards membership transfer fee of Rs.8010/-, associate membership charge of Rs.5000/-, documents charges of Rs.100/- and other charges. It is further pleaded that defendant after receiving the relevant charges, also received all original documents of the plot from the plaintiff's Predecessor- in-interest in order to transfer the same in favour of deceased Naseem Fatima  from the name of Muhammad Farooq. According to the plaintiff after receiving the documents and possession letter, Allotment Order, Site plan and other acknowledgment charges and issued acknowledgement receipt dated 2.3.2005. Right from the life time of Successor in Interest requested the defendant to return the original documents as well as physical possession of the suit plot but defendant failed to do so. After demise of Naseem Fatima the legal heirs requested the defendant for the same purpose but the defendant refused to do the needful, therefore plaintiff has no alternative and filed suit for physical possession, recovery of original documents, declaration and damages of Rs.50,00,000/- with the following prayers:-

 

            a)         To direct the defendant to hand over the physical possession of the plot bearing No.11-A-N/1, (Old No.9), Project No.II, Vide Membership No.4042, Measuring 240 Sq. yds, situated at Gulshan-e-Kaneez Fatima, Scheme No.33, Karachi, to the plaintiff alongwith all its original documents to the plaintiff.

 

            b)         To direct the defendant to pay the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the plaintiff in respect of damages claimed by the plaintiff for above mentioned losses.

 

            c)         Cost of the suit and /or any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be granted.

 

            The defendant has filed written statement and at the very outset has taken legal plea that the suit is not maintainable by virtue of section 70 A of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 and application for rejection of plaint has been filed on the ground that suit is barred by section 70 A of Cooperative Societies Act and suit would not be entertain able by any court except Registrar of Co-Operative Societies. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the following case law of Mst. ATIA KHANUM VS. MESSERS SAADABAD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. and others (2002 MLD 209) and reported as (PLD 2002 Kar.414).

i.                    1999 YLR 1127 (M. Wahidullah Ansari through his legal heirs and8 others Vs. Zubeda Sharif)

ii.                 PLD 2002 Kar. 414 D.B.

iii.             2002 MLD 209 (Mst. Atia Khanum Vs. M/s Saadabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and others).

iv.                NLR 1991 Civil 41 (Sajjad Hussain Khan and others Vs. Muhammad Haneef Siddiqui and others)

v.                  PLD 1995 Kar 399 (Zia-ur-Rehman Alvi Vs. M/s Allahabad Cooperative Housing Society Limited and 2 others).

 

            All these citation related to cases where no notice under Section 70 A of Cooperative Societies Act 1925 was issued to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies which is pre-requisite for filing of the suit and the suit of the plaintiff was rejected on that ground.

            Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendant has filed written statement and in very first para he contended as under:-

 

            "That the contents of para 1 are denied to the extent that the plaintiff was subject to irreparable losses by depriving of her life and her legitimate rights. It is submitted that the plaintiff as a matter of facts is neither bonafide member nor associate member of society".

 

            Mr. Mehmood Hussain learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that defendant has admitted and submitted that "plaintiff as a matter of fact is neither bonafide member nor associate member of society", therefore provisions section 50 of the Society Act applicable to the present case. In support of his case relied upon the  case of NIZAR ALI  vs. NOORABAD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. ETC (NLR 1987 CLJ 467),  KARACHI PARIS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. Vs. Mrs. DINA S. HAZARI (2004 YLR 2071), Mrs. NAILA MASOOD  and 2 others vs. SECRETARY, FOOD AND CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others (PLD 1999 Karachi 86) and MRS. NAILA MASOOD and 2 others Vs. THE SECRETARY, FOOD AND COOPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others (1998 CLC 1532)..

 

            I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties  and so also gone through the case law relied by both the learned counsel.

 

            Application for rejection has been filed on the ground that under section 70-A of the Act no notice issued to the Registrar therefore suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

 

            Since defendant himself in written statement has pleaded that plaintiff as a matter of fact is neither bonafide member nor associate member of the society in such circumstances suit does not appear to be barred by the provisions of sections 54 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. Therefore application for rejection of suit under order VII Rule 11 CPC has no force and is not maintainable. Plaintiff has only remedy to avail by filing of the present suit.

            Application is dismissed with no order as to cost.

 

            The matter is adjourned for proposed issues.

 

JUDGE