ATIR MAHMOOD, J.----This single judgment will dispose of Writ 'Petition No.18297 of 2019 and Writ Petition No.18299 of 2019 as common questions of law and fact are involved therein.
2. Brief facts of the case narrated in Writ Petition No.18297/2019 are that the petitioner is a franchisee of respondent No.3-T elecom Engineers Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Faisalabad; that respondent No.4 namely Haseeb Yasir Sindhu (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") filed two petitions under Section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against the petitioner with the averments that he is entitled to issuance of allotment letter of Plots Nos.36 and 37 after deposit of outstanding sale price in light of contract signed between him and the petitioner that the respondent purchased the plots from the petitioner through sale agreement; that total consideration amount of Rs.63,04,090/- against Plot No.37 was paid whereas Rs.20,00,000/- were paid against Plot No.36; that at that time, a water channel (khaal) was passing through the plots which matter was promised to be resolved by the petitioner; that till resolutio n of the dispute, the respondent deferred the remaining payment of Rs.43,00,000/- against Plot No.36 and when the dispute regarding khaal resolved, the respondent approached the petitioner but till that time, both the plots purchased by the respondent were allotted to some other persons.
3. The petitioner contested the same by filing written replies thereto. After hearing both sides, Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Faisalabad Division Faisalabad accepted the said petitions and directed the petitioner to allot plots in lieu of Plots Nos. 36 and 37 while receiving outstanding amount of Rs.43,00,000/- against Plot No.36 vide order dated 15.08.2017. The petitioner filed appeal before the Secretary Cooperatives who dismissed the same vide order dated 18.03.2009. Hence this writ petition has been filed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is two folds:
(i) the respondent is not member of the society; and
(ii) the Registrar Cooperatives had no jurisdiction in the matter and he should have referred the matter to the civil court while suspending the proceedings in the matter before him.
I take both the points one by one. No other ground has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner .
6. Admittedly , the petitioner is franchise of the TECH Society . In written reply to the petitions under Section 54 of the Act filed by the respondent, the petitio ner itself admits that the plots were purchased by the respondent from it and certain payments were also made but the transaction did not complete as there was water channel passing through the plots in question. The onus to resolve matter of water channel was purely on the petitioner and the respondent had nothing to do therewith. Therefore, the respondent could not be deprived from his rights on account of non-payment when material issue of existence of water channel in the land existed. Since payment has been admitted and sale agreement also not denied, it cannot be said that the respondent did not purchase the plots and when the plots have been purchased by the respondent, it cannot be said that he is not member of the society .
7. The petitioner is admittedly a franchise under the principal TECH Society . To my understanding, the principal/franchiser is bound by the acts of its franchisee as words exchanged by the franchisee with a third person bind the franchiser for the reason that the franchisee acts as a representative of the principal. An agreement creating relationship of agency may be express or implied and both the agent and the principal may be either an individual or entity such as corporation or partnership. In view of the aforesaid, purchasing plots from the petitioner by the respondent was as these were purchased from the society , therefore, with purchase of the plots from the petitioner , the respondent became member of the society . Furthermore, the petitioner itself filed a suit against the respondent on 03.09.2016 which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 14.12.2016. The said order reads as under: {{URDU TEXT}} (Underlined by me)
The above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner on pan of the petitioner is unequivocal that the allotment had already . been made in favour of the respondent and when allotment in favour of the respondent is admitted, his membership of the society cannot be denied. Furthermore, the written statement submitted by the respondent unequivocally mentions the Membership Number of the respondent as 4023 dated 13.04.2016 and Membership Numbers of the petitioner as 4038/C-1, 4039/23, 4040/24 and 4103/82 . Therefore, I am not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not member of the society . The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accordingly repelled.
8. Regarding jurisdiction of the Registrar Cooperatives, the respondents filed petitions under Section 54 of the Act.
The said provision reads as under: "54. Arbitration. ---If any dispute touching the business of a society (other than a dispute regarding disciplin ary action taken by the society or its committee against a paid servant of the society) arises :--
(a) between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member , or
(b) between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society , or
(c) between the society or its committee, and any past or present member of the society , or
(d) between the society or its committee, any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society , or a surety of such of ficer, agent or servant, whether such surety is or is not a member of the society , or
(e) between a financing bank authorized under subsection (1) of section 34 and a person who is not a member of society . it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned.
A dispute shall include the question whether a person is or was a member of a society and also claims by a society for debts or demands due to it from a member , past member or non-member or the heirs of assets of a past member or non-member whether such debts or demands be admitted or not.
Provided that if the question at issue between a society and. a claimant, or between different claimants, is one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suits instituted by one of the parties or by the society . If no such suit is instituted within six months or the Registrar's order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as laid down in paragraph 1 of this section"
(Emphasis provided)
Perusal of above provision of law starts with the words "If any dispute touching the business of a society (...) arises, ....it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision...". Meaning thereby , this section is pertaining to the matters involving business of the society . Undeniably , the matters in hand pertain to the allotment of plots of the TECH Society , therefore, this section attracts in this case and the Registrar has jurisdiction in this matter . This section further reads that if the parties desire, they may opt resolution of the matter through arbitration. Scanning of record reveals that none of the parties ever applied for resolution of the matter through arbitration. This fact has even been mentioned by the Deputy Registrar Cooperatives while deciding petitions of the respondent. When none of the parties opted for arbitration, there was no occasion for the Registrar to get resolved the controversy through arbitration. The more emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since there were complicated questions of law and fact involved, the Registrar should suspend the proceedings and refer the matter to the civil court for its decision as has been provided under the proviso of Section 54 of the Act. I have carefully read the proviso. This reads that "the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit..." This means that if the Registrar feels that the matter should be decided by the civil court, he can refer the same to the civil court but this does not bind the Registrar to send each and every matter to the civil court.
It was discretion of the Registrar to refer the matter to the civil court or decide himself and he decided the matter himself which comes within his competence and jurisdiction. So, in my considered view, the Registrar was not bound to necessarily send the matter to the civil court and had jurisdiction to decid e the matter himself or through his nominee. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the Registrar was never challenged by the petitioner before the lower forums, therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed to do so at this stage when two forums have already decided against the petitioner . Reliance is placed on the dictums laid down by the Hon'bl e Supreme Court of Pakistan in cases Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Pakistan) Lahore and others (PLD 1964 SC 829) and Fatal Ellahi and 5 others v . Alam Din (PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 109). The latter judgment reads as under: "...if in such a case a party joins issues and participates in the hearing without raising any objection about Rich a defect touching the jurisdiction, it cannot later on be allowed to turn round and challenge the jurisdiction of the Court when the case goes against."
9. Rule 32 of the Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927 provides as under: "32. Arbitration: When a dispute has been referred to the Registrar under Section 54, the Registrar or his nominee shall issue a notice to all parties and, unless either of the parties desires within 15 days of the issue of such a notice that the matter be referred to arbitration, shall proceed to decide the dispute himself..."
According to this rule, on receipt of reference under Section 54, the Registrar will issue notice to the concerned parties and if no move is made by the parties for decision of the matter through arbitration, he will proceed with the matter and decide the dispute himself. In view of the aforesaid, there remains no doubt that the Registrar had ample powers and jurisdiction to decide the matter himself or through his nominee and there is no jurisdictional defect in the impugned orders. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived which is accordingly discarded.
10. Another important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner filed a suit agains t the respondent before the civil court regarding the property in dispute on 03.09.2016 which was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 14.12.2016. But neither this fact was disclosed in the writ petition nor record of the same was appended therewith, as such, material fact was concealed by the petitioner from the court, apparently with mala fide intention. It is well settled proposition of law that if a party does not come to the court with clean hands, it is not entitled to any relief.
Even the mala fide of the petitioner has been noted by the Deputy Registrar during the course of arguments before him as he mentions in his order dated 15.08.2017 that learned counsel for the petitioner once again changed his stance and insisted that Plots Nos.36 and 37 were surrendered by the respondent and the same can be verified from the record of the society and when record was summoned, it contained no such document. Meaning thereby the petitioner even misstated and tried to mislead the lower forum. In this view of the matter , the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
11. There are concurrent findings of law and fact against the petitioner which are immune from interference by this Court unless there is some gross illegality which could not be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner . No interference is warranted in these circumstances.
12. For what has been discussed above, both the writ petitions have no merit. The same are accordingly dismissed.