ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---This single judgment will dispose of Cooperative Petitions Nos.31/2016, 45328/2019, 61575/2019, 74356/2019, 35784/2019, 45325/2019, 35795/2019, 45329/2019, 8825/2020, 24163/2019, 44051/2019, 59695/2019 and 50607/2019 and common questions of law and fact are involved therein.
2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that on 21.09.1992, respondent No.1 Mst. Zeenat Bibi being land lady filed ejection petition against defunct Pakistan Development Cooperative Corporation (PDCCL) who was a tenant on the ground floor of Property No.8, Block No.3, Jahanian. District Khanewal (rented premises) on account of default in rent. The PDCCL first appeared before the court to contest the ejectment petition, however , later on, they disappeared and ex pane proceedings were initiated against them. However , they appeared later on and filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the ejectment petition which was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.1993 whereafter , they again disappeared and were proceeded against ex parte. Having recorded evidence of the ejectment petitioner ex parte, the learned Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition with direction to PDCCL to pay Rs.72,600/- as arrears of rent to the ejectment petitioner vide ex parte order dated 30.03.1994. Respondent No.1 then filed petition for execution of order dated 30.03.1994. During the execution proceedings, an agricultural property of PDCCL was attached and put to auction which was purchased by respondent No.2 through registered sale deed dated 19.05.2004 (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property), as such, order dated 30.03.1994 stands executed. Hence this cooperative petition has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992 was promulgated which was later on enacted as Act I of 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); that under Section 5 of the Act, the petitioner-PCBL was appointed as liquidator for defunct societies including the PDCLL vide notification dated 21.05.1992; that the property in question was no more owned by the defunct PDCCL rather it was under the control of the PCBL since 21.05.1992, therefore, it could neither be attached nor auctioned by the court, as such, the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 is illegal and unlawful; that Section 17 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of any other court in cooperativ e matters whereas Section 16 provides that proceedings before any court against an undesirable cooperative society in respect of its assets and liabilities shall stand abated on the appointment of liquidator and that all the decre es, judgment and order passed by any court, except the apex court, will be in executable after 01.07.1990 unless confirmed by the Cooperative Judge; that the orders passed by learned rent controller as well as the executing court are without jurisdiction in view of Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, therefore, these are nullity in the eye of law. He accordingly prays that the orders of learned Rent Controller as well as learned executing court be set aside and the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2 be cancelled by way of allowing this cooperative petition. He has relied upon the law laid down in cases Messrs Umar Auto Store and others v. The Judge Banking Court and others (2014 CLD 1452 Lahore), The Collector of Sales Tax and Centra l Excise, LTU, Karachi v. Messrs Pak Suzuki Col. Ltd. Karachi (2016 SCMR 646), Dr. Muhammad Afzal Hussain v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and 5 others (2015 CLC 1546 Lahore), Muhammad Umar Mir, and others v. Dr. Muhammad Afzal Hussain and others (PLJ 2016 SC 120), Tanveer Ahmad v. Muhammad Sharif and 2 others (1997 MLD 1913 Lahore), Mian Umar Ikram ul Haque v.
Dr. Shahida Hasnain and another (2016 SCMR 2186 ), Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Authorized Officer v. Adnan Faisal and another (PLD 2019 Sindh 235), Muhammad Asif Nawaz v.
Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace Multan and 2 others (2014 CLD 45 Lahore), Messrs Askari Leasing Ltd. through Chief Manager v. Presiding Officer and another (PLD 2015 Lahore 140), Muhammad Asif Nawaz v. Additional Sessions Judge/ Justice of Peace Multan and 2 others (2014 PCr.LJ 1 Lahore), Messrs Noorani Traders Karachi through Managing Partner v. Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority through Airport Manager , Karachi (PLD 2002 Karachi 83) The Province of Punjab and another v. National Industrial Cooperative Credit Corporation and another (2000 SCMR 567), (2003 PTD (Trib.) 613), Muhammad Ayub and others v. Mst. Nusrat Begum (2003 YLR 793 Peshawar ), United Bank Limited through Attonrey v. Messrs Blessed International (Pvt.) Limited and 6 others (2003 CLD 39 Lahore), Defence Housing Authority , Islamabad v. Shafqat Rasool and others (2017 YLR 538 Islamabad), S.M. Waseem Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary , M/s Housing and Woks, Islamabad and others (2013 SCMR 338), Muhammad Saleem and 2 others v. Khuda Bux and 4 others (2013 MLD 266 Sindh), Nazir Ahmed Panhwar v.
Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh, Karachi and 3 others (2005 PLC (C.S.) 189), Makhdum Raju Shah v. Member Board of Revenue, Punjab and 17 others (2011 YLR 1724 Lahore), Faizullah v. Muhammad Sarwar and another (2013 CLC 1054 Lahore), Brothers Sugar Mills Limited and others v. Punjab Cooperative Board for Liquidation and others (2012 CLC 1369 Lahore) and Zia Ullah Shah v. Muhammad Khaqan and 6 others (2018 MLD 1869 Islamabad).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has vehemently opposed this petition and fully supported the impugned orders. He argues that this petition is not maintainable as under Section 11 of the Act, only a person aggrieved by order of the cooperative board, its chairman or delegatee of the Chairman can file cooperative petition but the cooperative board can't. He avers that the only remedy available to the petitioner board was to challenge the order of learned Rent Controller in appeal or file application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. and the order of the executing court in appeal but the orders impugned could not be challenge before the Cooperative Judge who is a persona designate and has no power to set aside the decree or order passed by any court. He has relied upon the law laid down in cases Muhammad Ashfaq v. The State (PLD 1973 SC 368), Begum Syeda Azra Masood v. Begum Nosheba Moee n and others (2007 SCMR 914), Nazir Ahmad v. Imdad Hussain and others (2005 YLR 1096 Lahore), Syed Mehmood Ali v. Network Television Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (PLD 2005 Karachi 399), Evacuee Trust Property Board throu gh Secretary v. Deputy Commissioner , Sahiwal and another (1994 CLC 939 Lahore), Mehdi Khan and 2 others v. Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 25 others (2000 CLC 638 Lahore), Waheed Shahzad Butt v Federation of Pakistan through Director Legal-II President (Appellant Authority) and another (PLD 2016 Lahore 872) and Messrs Conforce Ltd. v . Syed Ali Shah and others (PLD 1977 SC 599).
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. The petitioner-Board while filing this application has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 7, 16 and 17 of the Act. Section 7 gives the powers to the board to do certain acts. Subsections (s) to (v) of this Section are relevant for the purpose of decision of this case which are reproduced as under: "(s) delegate to the Chairman, or any member or committee or officer or adviser , any of its powers under this Ordinance or the rules;
(t) apply to the Co-operatives Judge for guidance, in relation to any particular matter arising in winding up proceedings;
(ta) direct the eviction of tenants from any of the properties in the Board;
(tb) create a fund for social sector development in the Punjab with surplus assets if any;
(u) maintain accounts in such manner as may be prescribed; and
(v) refer a case, for the recovery of a loan advanced by an Undesirable Co-operative Society or for the execution of any decree, order or award passed in favour of such a society , at any stage of its proceedings to the Co-operatives Judge who may dispose it of or otherwis e dealt with it in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed and until the procedure is prescribed as may be determined by the Co-operatives Judge."
The above provisions of law nowhere empower the Board or its Chairman to challenge any order , judgment or decree of any court (even if passed without jurisdiction) before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized more on Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. I take both the said provisions one by one.
8. Section 16 provides as under: "16. Abatement of all suits, proceedin gs etc.---( 1) All suits or proceedings pending before any Court or authority against an Undesirable Cooperative Society in respect of its assets and liabilities shall stand abated on the appointment of the Liquidator: Provided that fresh proceedings against such a society may be initiated before the Co-operatives Judge within 60 days of such abatement.
(2) All decrees, judgments and orders passed by any Court, except the Supreme Court against an Undesirable Co-operative Society or against properties and assets thereof on or after the first day of July, 1990 shall be unexecutable and of no legal effect, unless such judgment, decree or order is confirmed by the Co-operatives Judge after hearing the concerned parties.
(3) Any person who relies on such decre es judgments or orders, may within 60 days of the appointment of the Liquidator , apply to the Co-operative Judge for its confirmation.
(Emphasis. provided)
The crux of Section 16 of the Act is that after appointment of the Liquidator , all the suits and the proceedings pending before any Court or authority in respect of assets and liabilities of an unde sirable cooperative society shall stand abated and if any order or decree has been passed in respect of assets and liabilities of such society , it will be got confirmed by such decree holder or beneficiary of such order from the Cooperative Judge, as such, the right of approaching the Cooperative Judge under this provision, as well, has not been given to the cooperative board rather such right has been bestowed upon the decree holder or the beneficiary of the order passed by some other court. In this case, respondent No.1 being owner of the property filed ejectment petition against her tenant PDCCL, the defunct society . Though the PDCCL contested the suit from its very inception and also filed application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. but the said application was dismissed by the Rent Controller vide order dated 30.03.1993 which was not assailed before the higher forum. The Rent Controller continued its proceedings and ultimately allowed the ejectment petition with arrears of rent to be paid by the PDCCL to the ejectment petitioner which order was duly got executed through the executing court. From the aforesaid, it is obvious that the PDCCL was tenant under respondent No.1 who did not challenge the ownership of any of assets of the PDCCL rather prayed for ejectment of her tenant from her owned property . The ownership and title of respondent No.1 qua the rented premises has never been disputed by the petitioner board till today nor the rent controller or the executing court could declare her title or ownership in the rent proceedings. Meaning thereby the rent proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 were not in respect of any assets of defunct PDCCL, therefore, there arises no question of proceedings against assets of the PDCCL in the ejectment proceedings initiated by respondent No. 1.
9. So far as the sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 is concerned, the executing court, for recovery of arrears of rent from the PDCCL, attached its property and auctioned it which was purchased by respondent No.2 in the auction held under orders of the court through the impugned sale deed. The petitio ner board could raise objections during the execution proceedings or could file appeal against order of the executing court but none of these remedies has been availed by the petitioner board rather it has preferred to file the cooperative petition which is not maintainable as noted hereinabove.
10. Section 17 of the Act reads as under: "17. Exclusive jurisdiction of Co-operatives Judge.--- Save as otherwise provided in this Act, no Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which a Co-operatives Board and the Co-operatives Judge are empowered by or under this Ordinance to determine and no injunction or process or order shall be granted by any Court or authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in exercise of any power conferred by or under this Act."(Emphasis provided)
This provision reads that no court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which comes within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Board or the Cooperative Judge. It is pertinent to mention here that the Cooperative Judge is a persona designata and can only act in accordance with the powers specifically given to him and not otherwise.
Emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon an order dated 06.03.2013 passed in W.P.
No.2425/2008 titled "PCBL v. Mst. Naseem Yousaf etc." which was also challenged in Review Application No.512 of 2013 but with the same result. In the said case, a civil suit was filed by the respondent in the civil court at Islamabad who assumed the jurisdiction and an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. filed by the PCBL was dismissed.
The matter was then agitated before the Additional District Judge, Islamabad who affirmed the said order . Then a writ petition was filed by the PCBL which was allowed and application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. was accepted. This clearly means that the jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which was accordingly exercised but this Court, being persona designata has no such jurisdiction to set aside the impugned ejectment order of the court or cancel a registered sale-deed in favour of respondent No.2. Therefore, Section 17 of the Act does not attract in the given circumstances.
11. Needless to observe that if any decree, order or document executed is without jurisdiction, the same is a nullity in the eye of law but even if it is a nullity in the eye of law, this Court cannot nullify the effect of such judgment, decree or sale deed and the same can only be assailed before the proper forum, if so advised.
12. As far as question of liability regard ing arrears of rent is concerned, the same could be countered by the petitioner before the executing court which was the proper forum in the present case. Regarding sale deed in favour of respondent No.2, the same already stood registered. The question whether it was lawfully registered or not, could only be raised before the executing court who passed the order in this regard and not before this Court.
13. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner board being distinguishable on facts is not attracted in the instant case, as such, it is not helpful to the petitioner in any manner .
14. Cooperative Petitions Nos.44051 of 2019 and 50607 of 2019 are different in the sense that the civil suit in the matter of former petition is still pending decision whereas in the latter petition, application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. was filed by petitioner side which was dismissed vide order dated 27.02.2019 which order was not further assailed before any forum except through the instant petition. Therefore, if so advised, the petitioner in Cooperative Petition No.44051 of 2019 may file application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. whereas the petitioner in Cooperative Petition No.50607 may assail the order impugned before the appropriate forum. If done so, the respective courts will decide the matters put before them in view with the provis ions of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 and of course,' other law on the subject.
15. For what has been discussed above, all the cooperative petitions are dismissed .