' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 913/68, 377/72 and 11243/80. It shall, however, remain on the file of Writ Petition No, 913 of 1968.
2. The firm by the name of Chenab Ginners obtained a loan from the Central Co-operative Bank, Lyallpur, now represented by the Provincial Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Which remained unpaid.
Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar, issued a notice under section 5 of the West Pakistan Co- operative Societies and Co-operative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966, to the partners of the firm. Such a notice was also issued to Chaudhry Fateh Muhammad petitioner, who died during the pendency of this litigation and has been substituted by his legal representatives.
3. The deceased entered appearance before the Deputy Registrar and questioned his liability on a variety of grounds. The grievance which brought him before this Court is that he was not allowed to cross-examine the Bank Manager and that copies of some of the documents necessary, for his defence, despite demand, were not supplied to him. Through Writ Petition No, 913/68, the inquiry before the Deputy Registrar, is sought to be declared as illegal, on the ground that the requirements of law were not complied with by him.
4. During the pendency of these proceedings, M. L.
0. 241 was promulgated and in pursuance of para. 6 thereof, some immovable property of the deceased attached. Writ Petition No, 377/72 was brought by him to assail the proceedings initiated under M. L.
0. 241.
5. The third W. P. No, 11243/80, which is still at the limine stage, has been filed by Chaudhry Iftikhar, who is one of the legal representatives of Ch. Fateh Muhammad deceased, but is being proceeded against as surety. He has also questioned his liability on certain grounds which need not be enumerated here.
6. I have heard the learned Advocate-General and so also Mr. Shahzad Jahangir and Pir Altaf Hussain, Advocates on behalf of the Departmental authorities and the Bank. The petitioners have been heard through Mr. Mahmood-ul-Haq Thanvi, Advocate.
7. The learned Advocate-General submits that the Departmental authorities have no objection in supplying the copies of the requisite documents to the petitioners, in accordance with law. The contention raised by the deceased petitioner, that he was not permitted to cross-examine the Bank Manager, was controverted on behalf of the Department but to shorten, the life of this litigation, it was agreed that an opportunity shall be extended to the petitioners to cross-examine the witness concerned.
8. It has also been urged on behalf of the petitioners that if they have to take a recourse to the proceedings, before the Departmental authorities, the auction of their property attached under M.
L. O. 241 which hitherto remained stayed, would be conducted and that it would create further complications. However, on behalf of the Bank, it has been stated at the bar, that the attachment shall remain in force but the property shall not be disposed of through auction till the conclusion of the inquiry by the Deputy Registrar.
9. I feel, that in view of the offer made on behalf of the Departmental authorities the petitioners' grievances stand redressed. The inquiry before the Deputy Registrar shall proceed, copies of the documents in question be provided to the petitioners, in accordance with law, and an opportunity given to cross-examine the witness. It shall be, open to the petitioners to canvass various grounds raised in the writ petition, before the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar. Similarly, Chaudhry Iftikhar petitioner,' may also urge, that no liability as surety, can be vested upon him. With these observations the writ petitions are disposed of.
' The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunals below on 20-11-1982. They are left to bear their own costs.