' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 the petitioner has challenged the order dated 3-3- 2005 passed by the Judicial Officer through which award has been passed against the petitioner for an amount of Rs,29,29,702.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner was proprietor of Awais Brothers and he was maintaining the account No,378 since 9-12-1990 in the Pasban Finance Cooperative Corporation Ltd. (defunct), who had availed facility of loan to the tune of Rs,7,17,143 and the account of the petitioner remained operative till 6-11-1991 the date when all the cooperatives societies were dissolved. Then against the over draft facility a sum of Rs,8,42,167 was outstanding against the petitioner as on 31-81991. As a result of said outstanding amount, the petitioner deposited Rs,3,43,200 in cash on 6-11-1991 and on the same day, he got adjusted an SMR amounting to Rs,5 lac. Thus Rs,33 stood at credit of the account holder. After the dissolution of Cooperative Societies including Pasban Finance Cooperative Corporation, the Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation within the capacity of Liquidator questioned said entries of adjustment dated 6-11-1991. The matter was taken up by then Judicial Officer PCBL, Lahore and ex parte award for Rs,21,05,717 was passed on 5-5-2000. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing Petition No,5180-C of 2001 which was finally decided on 5-5-2004 whereby ex parte award was set aside and case was remanded back to the respondent No,2 for de novo proceedings. Respondent No,2 initiated fresh proceedings. The present petitioner and other respondent namely Muhammad Shabir Dar Ex-Manager of defunct PCFC submitted their written reply. The PCBL produced oral evidence by producing Mubashir Ali, Executive Incharge, PCFC as P.W.1 and Nizam Din Qureshi Additional Manager recovery of PCBL as P.W.2. The petitioner appeared as D.W.1. The Judicial Officer respondent No,2 without adverting to the true facts and the law on the subject has passed an award amounting to Rs,29,29,700 vide order dated 3-3-2005 against the petitioner and the General Manager of the branch namely Muhammad Shabir Dar holding them jointly and severally liable to pay the outstanding amount including mark up. According to the petitioner the learned Judicial Officer respondent No,2 has disbelieved entries made on 6-11-1991. This opinion framed by the learned Judicial Officer is not in consonance with the legal ethics as it is an admitted fact on the record that the entries were made on 6-11-1991 when it was last day of functioning of the then Pasban Finance Cooperative Corporation Ltd. No doubt a Notification might have been issued by the Government of Punjab for dissolution of all the Cooperative Societies including the Pasban on the same day i,e, 6-11-1991, in this behalf statement of the P.Ws. Produced by the PCBL; that they were not sure whether an intimation of issuance of order for dissolution of Cooperative Societies was served upon the administration of all the Cooperative Societies including the Pasban on 6-11-1991 meaning thereby that the business was continued on the same day. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the public at large including the petitioner were aware of dissolution of Cooperative Societies on the above said date when adjustment was made. Respondent No,2 has stretched presumption in favour of PCBL and against the petitioner that on the day of dissolution of Cooperative Societies i,e, 6-11-1991 business was not being done and any entry of adjustment could not have been made. On the other hand inference can also be drawn in favour of the petitioner accepting that all the Cooperative Societies were in function on 6-11-1991 and entry of adjustment made on the same day was lawful. According to the petitioner both the P.Ws. Have categorically admitted the factum of entries of adjustment made on 6-11-1991 in the relevant Cash Book. So far as other books like Day Book or Ledgers are concerned, the petitioner was not custodian of the relevant books, rather admittedly the requisite record/books were handed over by the Manager in the Office of PCBL on 12-12-1998. Further more it is an admitted fact that after adjustment of outstanding loan made on 6-11-1991 Rs,33 were at credit. Statements of witnesses, which are self-explanatory, are annexed with this petition.
' The impugned award after levying huge mark up on principal amount is absolutely unjust and illegal. According to the petitioner the then Manager of Pasban Cooperatives has admitted this fact in his written reply that deposit of cash and adjustment made on 6-11-1991 against outstanding loan was a result of hectic pressure upon the petitioner and his family members.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the award has been passed only on presumption; that the adjustment had been made on 6-11-1991 on the last date of closure of the branches of the Pasban; that record was not in possession of PCFC and if it was not properly maintained no decree could be passed only for this reason; that the adjustment has been made through SMRs, through cash and Manager has supported that the adjustments were made, hence, the Judicial Officer has wrongly passed the award and it may be set aside.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition on the ground that there was no counter entry or deposit slip of adjustment and payments made in cash by the petitioner accepting the adjustment shown against the account of the petitioner and Manager was already in league with the petitioner as he had given the loan to the petitioner without any guarantee or equity. Hence, the award is justified and may be maintained.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents attached with this petition carefully.
6. It is not denied by the petitioner that he had opened Account No,378 on 9-12-1990 and he obtained the loan of Rs,7,17,139. It is also admitted fact that till 6-11-1991 not a single penny was paid from the outstanding loan against the petitioner by him. It is also admitted fact that corporation scam came on surface on 6-11-1991 and a direction was issued by Registrar Cooperative Societies for closure of all the branches and all the dealings were struck off. So the adjustment was rightly pointed out to be doubtful. Even otherwise it is noticed that the petitioner had opened the account in PCFC on 9-12-1990 and only deposited the amount of Rs,9,77 on the same day, but a huge amount of Rs,7,17,000 had been paid to the petitioner as over draft facility. The Account remained operative from 2-12-1990 to 31-8-1991 but no transaction deposit or withdrawal except the taking of over draft of the said huge amount by the petitioner had been found mentioned against his account. The said loan has been advanced to the petitioner without any equity i,e, mortgage deed.
The Bank Manager had also not secured the loan through documents and the petitioner did not deposit a single penny till 6-11-1991 i,e, the last date on which all the branches and business of PCFC and other finance Corporations had been closed.
7. It has been rightly pointed out by the Judicial Officer that only that adjustment was got mentioned and the detail of payment in cash and SMRs which were adjusted had not been mentioned. Only one adjustment had been made which casts serious doubt whether any adjustment had been made or not. Even otherwise petitioner while appearing in his defence has failed to produce any receipt of cash amount or any documentary evidence in support of adjustment of SMRs for amount of Rs,5 lac. It has been rightly observed by the learned Judicial Officer after the perusal of the record that Shabir Dar Manager of the Branch had made deposit entries of adjustment, but he had delivered only three account ledgers showing the accounts of various customers but the other documents particularly the day book and cash book containing the receipt and disposal of its cash has not been delivered to PCBL by him. It is rightly pointed that if the adjustments were genuine there must be entries in day book and cash book and the mode of adjustment has not been indicated.
8. Defendant No,2 before the learned Judicial Officer, Shabir Ahmed Dar who was Manager of the branch cannot be believed whose conduct was already doubtful as on the same day when the petitioner had opened the account with meagre amount of Rs,777 he had given him over draft facility of a huge amount without any security or equity. This shows that he was in league with the petitioner, who instead of looking after the interest of his organization had given the huge amount to the petitioner without securing the same and the petitioner also did not make any transaction after the receipt of said amount as loan till the closure of PCFC. During the cross-examination the petitioner has also stated that he had no receipt in his possession for deposit of the cash as claimed by him for an amount of Rs,3,39,000 and in such circumstances, the adjustment made in favour of the petitioner was highly doubtful and seems to have been manoeuvred in order to deprive the PCFC and its creditors of such a huge amount. The petitioner has already been afforded opportunity to show the adjustment made in his favour but he utterly failed to do so. The impugned order/decree has been passed on valid reasons and after appreciating the evidence in true perspective. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of any important piece of evidence in favour of the petitioner. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merits which is accordingly dismissed.