' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHOWHAN, J.---This writ petition is directed against order dated 28-4-2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, whereby, he while dismissing the revision petition upheld the order dated 7-3-2005 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal in an application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sahiwal against respondents that temporary allotment of Masjid Shohda Farid Town by respondent No.3 is void, illegal and bogus and as such allotment in favour of respondent No.7 is liable to be set aside. Besides that he moved application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
Which was accepted. Thereafter issues were framed and case was fixed for evidence, when on 2-1- 2002 Anjuman Islamia Satellite Town, Sahiwal respondent No.7 moved an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. This application was accepted on 10-7-2002 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and the case was adjourned for filing of amended plaint by including the name of Anjuman Islamia Satellite Town as defendant No.7.
3. The petitioner challenged the order dated 10-7-2002 by filing civil revision which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal vide order dated 22-5-2003. This order of learned Additional District Judge was not challenged and the same attained finality.
4. Instead of filing amended plaint in compliance of the order of the learned trial Court on 8-10- 2003, petitioner moved an application under section 151, C.P.C. With the prayer that Anjuman Islamia Satellite Town respondent No.7 was allowed to be impleaded as defendant by this Court.
This Anjuman was registered in the year 1959 under the Society Registration Act 1860. Since Registrar of the Societies vide letter dated 24-7-2003 declared respondent No.7 a defunct society, the same as such is no more in existence, therefore, it cannot be impleaded as defendant. This application of the petitioner was dismissed on 7-3-2005. This order of learned Senior Civil Judge was challenged in civil revision before District Judge which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 28-4-2005. Hence this writ petition.
5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts below while passing the impugned order had not seen the letter dated 27-7-2003 issued by Registrar Societies, Sahiwal in its true perspective, which was issued by the Registrar on the moving of application of respondent No.7. Further submits that since the respondent society was declared to be a defunct society, the society had died its natural death. Since the society is not in existence, the same cannot move application to be impleaded as defendants. Further argued that unregistered Society had no legal identity, same cannot be sued on its name.
6. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No.7 argued that in the body of the plaint almost in every para. Name of the respondent society mentioned in one way or the other. It is not mentioned in the body of the plaint that it is a defunct society.
' Society was deliberately not impleaded as defendant in the suit. The respondent-Society was registered with the Registrar. Further submits that there is no penal provision provided in the Act of 1860 and a society once registered cannot be deregistered. The society does not require any renewal of the certificate of registration. Section 13 of the Act 1860 deals with how a society can be dissolved. Section 16 deals with supercession of the governing body of the society and that can only be done if Government is of the opinion that society shall be dissolved. Reference is made to AIR 1958 Andra Pardesh 773, once a society is registered with the Registrar cannot be deregistered.
In case of Muhammad Yousaf v. District Nazim Attock and 5 others (2003 CLC 1423) it is held that even the Registrar had no power to dismiss the Society. The Marriage Hall Association v. The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others (1998 CLC 33). Further submitted that suit filed by respondent No.7 against petitioner is pending. Further adds that order to be impleaded respondent No.7 as defendant in the suit had attained finality and till today the petitioner is avoiding to file the amended plaint. Finally argued that any order passed in revision cannot be challenged in writ petition unless the same is void ab initio or corum non judice. Order passed by both the Court below were passed with jurisdiction. Relying on Noor Muhammad v. Sarwar Khan and 2 others (PLD 1985 SC 131), Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others (1988 SCMR 322) and Muhammad Samiullah Khan v. ADJ, Sargodha (PLD 2002 Lahore 56) argued that even if order passed is illegal but was passed with jurisdiction, High Court shall not interfere.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, peruse the record and gone through the law.
8. Vide order dated 10-7-2002 respondents application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. To be impleaded as defendant in the suit was allowed by the trial Court after seeking reply to the same from the petitioner and hearing both the parties. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing revision before the District Judge, Sahiwal which was heard and dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 22-5-2003. This order was not challenged by the petitioner before the higher forum and the same attained finality. Petitioner was directed by the trial Court to file amended plaint. Instead of filing amended plaint by adding the name of the respondent as defendant No.7, he moved an application under section 151, C.P.C. With the prayer that, since the Society was declared defunct and is not in existence, therefore, the Society cannot be impleaded as defendant. This application was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court, holding that the application has been filed after the order for impleading the respondent as defendant in the suit was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, which had attained finality. The learned trial Court was absolutely correct while holding that application cannot be granted and the objections raised by the petitioner/ plaintiff would be decided after the respondent is impleaded as defendant who would file his written statement and after recording evidence of parties. The order of the trial Court was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the civil revision and holding that there is no jurisdictional defect in the order of the learned trial Court nor the same suffer from any material irregularities.
9. Since the order of the learned Additional District Judge passed in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. Does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity. Such order could not be challenged through constitutional petition unless the same is void or corum non judice. Reliance in this respect can be placed on Sh. Gulzar Ali and Co. Ltd. And others v. Special Judge, Special Court of Banking and another (1991 SCMR 590) and Rana Mamoon Rasheed v.
Kokab Noorani Okarvi and 4 others (PLD 1999 Karachi 257). Even otherwise the petitioner instead of filing written statement in compliance of the order of trial Court with an intention to delay the matter had filed this miscellaneous application. The status of the respondent would be solved by the trial Court after recording evidence of the parties. The application was rightly dismissed.
10. For what has been discussed above, this constitutional petition having no merit is dismissed.