' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The learned counsel for the petitioner has read from section 16 of the Punjab Un-desirable Societies Dissolution Act, 1993 ("Act") to state that the learned Cooperatives Judge has exclusive jurisdiction in respect of all matters pertaining to the question of dissolved societies including the presently relevant Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Ltd. ("Society") which stood dissolved by operation of law. He submits that the orders passed by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 at the instance of respondent No. 3 in the matter pertaining to the said respondents over the liability owed to the society are therefore, violative of the aforesaid statutory bar and without jurisdiction. That the petitioner had purported to raise the said objection to jurisdiction before respondent No.4 but the petitioner's effort was thwarted on the ground that its revision petition was time-barred. The objection to jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage because it affects the validity of impugned proceedings rendering the same void ab initio.
No limitation runs against void orders. He relies on Pak American Fertilizer Limited through Managing Director and another v. Bahadar Khan and 53 others (2004 M LD 1621), Haji Abdul Sattar v.
Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi and others (1984 SCMR 925), Chittaranjan Cotton Mills Ltd. v.
Staff Union (PLD 1971 SC < 197) and Rashid Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1972 SC 271).
2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the jurisdictional objection under section 16 of the. Act does not apply and in any event was never taken before any forum below.
Furthermore, he submits that the petitioner has no case on merits because there is a credit balance due in favour of respondent No.3 against the society; this aspect of the matter however, transpires to be disputed.
3. Be that as it may, the objection of jurisdiction has not been adverted by the forums below. This is a matter that needs to be decided at the outset and is a question that over reaches the law of limitation, because if valid, it would infect the impugned proceedings with incompetence and illegality. Accordingly, the impugned order by respondent No. 4 that forecloses any challenges by the petitioner on the ground of limitation has committed an error and is, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority.
4. The respondent No.4 shall in the first instance determine the jurisdictional competence of the statutory functionaries under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 to deal with any matter pertaining to property matters and claims of defunct societies under the Act, that is, in the case of the petitioner. Petition disposed of.