' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, 1.--- Present petition under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, proceeds against order, dated 28-12-2005, whereby the Judicial Officer P.C.B.L. Dismissed petitioner's three applications, filed under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. In three different recovery cases.
2. Facts of the case, as discernible from the available record, are that P.C.B.L. Filed three suits for passing awards against the petitioner and one Mehmood Khan. The Judicial Officer, in the absence of aforesaid Mehmood Khan, rendered ex parte three awards, vide separate orders all dated 14-7- 1999, whereby Mehmood Khan was held responsible, while Arshad Mehmood the present petitioner, was absolved of all liabilities. Mehmood Khan filed the petitioner before this Court for setting aside ex parte awards, which was allowed on 9-7-2001 and the cases were remanded to the Judicial Officer with the directions to decide the application. Pursuant thereto, Arshad Mehmood attended the proceedings, however, Mehmood Khan choose to remain absent from the proceedings and the Judicial Officer set aside the awards, dated 14-7-1999, vide order, dated 1-1-2005. The petitioner did not challenge the said order before the higher forum and instead thereof filed three applications, under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C., for rejection of the claims of P.C.B.L., which were resisted by the Board and ultimately Judicial Officer dismissed all the applications, vide impugned order, dated 28-12- 2005, hence the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that Mehmood Khan, after remand of the case, did not appear before the Judicial Officer, therefore, his application could be dismissed but no adverse order could be passed against the petitioner. He adds that Judicial Officer has no power to review the earlier awards dated 14-7-1999. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submits that the petition is not competent against interim order, dated 28-12-2005.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. As noted above, the Judicial Officer, in post-remand proceedings, set aside the awards dated 14-7-1999, vide detailed order, dated 1-1-2005. To my mind, although the grounds now agitated by the learned counsel were available to the petitioner at that point of time, yet he did not at all challenge order, dated 1-1- 2005, before this Court and, hence it attained finality. The petitioner cannot be allowed to unearth past and closed transaction and is estopped to challenge order, dated 1-1-2005 under the garb of proceedings arising out of the impugned order. The petitioner appeared to have acquiesced over the matter and choose to continue with the ensuing proceedings. The petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge order, dated 1-1-2005, in the present petition, after the lapse of more than fourteen months. Most importantly, the petitioner has not even prayed, in the present petition for setting aside of order, dated 1-1-2005. The contentions raised by the learned counsel are devoid of merits.
5. There is another aspect of the case. The petitioner has filed the instant petition against the interim order passed by the Judicial Officer. To my mind, the impugned order, for all intents and purposes, is an interlocutory order, as the main case is pending before the Judicial Officer, P.C.B.L.
Awaiting decision. During the pendency of the main petition, a litigant cannot be allowed to agitate every interim order by filing a petition under section 11 of the Act. If during the pendency of the proceedings before the Judicial Officer, each and every order passed by him is made appealable to this Court under section 11 of the Act, then it would definitely hamper and delay the proceedings before the Judicial Officer, who cannot work smoothly to achieve the purpose, for which he was appointed. The primary object of enforcing these laws is to protect and safeguard the interest of the depositors. Each and every act or decision of the Cooperative Board or/and Judicial Officer, which is interim/interlocutory and does not dispose of the entire matter before it, cannot be called in question, by filing an application under the afore noted provision of law. This petition cannot be entertained on this ground too.
6. In the above perspective, the present petition stands dismissed.