The petitioner, through the present petition, under Section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Co- operative Societies (Dissolution) Act 1993, has called in question order dated 28.2.2006, whereby the judicial officer PCBL issued the award of Rs. 10,52,16,076/- against both the managements.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the impugned order was passed at the back of the petitioner, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. He adds that as the impugned order was not communicated to the petitioner and the copy was supplied late, therefore, delay in filing the petition may be condoned. Learned counsel for the respondent Board submits that the present petition is barred by time, as the same was filed after four months of the passing of the impugned order, therefore, the same cannot be entertained He adds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable in the present proceedings.
3. The petitioner has filed the application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (C.M. No. 3/2006) for condonation of delay in filing the parent application, on the ground that the impugned order was never communicated to the petitioner and that delay in preparation of certified copy is on the part of the office and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for filing delayed petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Admittedly, the present petition was filed on 10.6.2006 to challenge order dated 28.2.2006, thus, the petition in hand was filed after the lapse of four months from the date of order. Section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Co- operative Societies (Dissolution) Act 1993, as amended by Punjab Undesirable Co-operative 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. flows therefrom that the limitation period for filing a 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 Undesirable Co- operative Societies (Dissolution) Act 1993. No provision of Act of 1993 empowers a Co-operative Judge to entertain an 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 Vs. 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 affect 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."
5. In view whereof as the Undesirable Co-operative 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
6. 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. No order as to costs.