1. ' ABDUL HAVEE KURESHI, C. J.-The petitioner is an officer in the Pakistan Army. He states that he had applied for allotment of a plot in the Defence Housing Society. He has produced a photostat copy of an Allotment Order, dated 13-10-1976, showing that Plot No, 111, Kh-e-Arafat, Phase-VIII, measuring 2,000 square yards was allotted to him. Perhaps, some documents, concerning the transfer of this plot to the petitioner, were misplaced, lost, or, destroyed, and a dispute arose in regard to this allotment. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a case before the Registrar, who sent the same to a nominee for arbitration. By an award, dated 18-.0-1978, the Registrar's nominee declared that the petitioner continued to be a member of the Society from the first day on which he applied for such membership, and it was also declared that the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner subsisted. Reasons for the award were separately recorded, but it is not necessary for us to enter into those questions.
2. ' The Pakistan Defence Housing Social was aggrieved by such order of the Registrar's nominee, and they filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. During the pendency of this appeal, which would, in fact, be an application under section 54-A of the Co- operative Societies Act, M. D. Gangat (respondent No, 4) made an application for being joined as a party. The application was granted on the fact that the petitioner had transferred the plot in question to respondent No,
4. The said respondent had also made an application for summoning some officers, under whom the petitioner was working, as witnesses. In such state of circumstances, the Deputy Registrar thought it fit that the intervenor may be impleaded as a party, and then the case may be remanded for further hearing and decision by the arbitrators. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Secretary of the Co-operative Department, Government of Sind. While this appeal was pending, President's Order VII of 1980. Was promulgated, converting the Defence Officers' Housing Society into a statutory authority. This Presidential Order has provided for disputes previously covered by the Co-operative Societies Act being adjudicated by the authorities under the Presidents Order. Even pending cases were affected, and, b operation of the President's Order, the appeal under section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act was transferred to the Executive Board of the Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority, Karachi.
3. ' The said Board had passed an order on 29th March, 1983 referring the case to the Administrator of the said Authority for fresh adjudication. The relevant paragraphs in the order of the Executive Board are reproduced hereunder :- "6. We have heard the Advocates of the parties and have also gone through the record of the case and we agree with the reasoning given by the Registrar in his order dated 29-7-1980 as discussed above. One of the documents which the dissolved Society also wanted to send to handwriting expert was not sent to handwriting expert by the Nominee of the Registrar only on the ground that it was objected to by the appellant. In all fairness those documents should be sent to handwriting expert for his opinion. In any case we find that no prejudice will be caused to the appellant if the matter is referred back to the original forum for adjudication afresh.
7. In the circumstances we also find that respondent No, 2, who claims the transfer of the plot in question, is also a necessary and proper party and should have been given an opportunity to produce such evidence as was necessary to arrive at truth."
4. ' It is against such order that the petitioner is now aggrieved, and hence this petition.
5. The main point, that has been urged by the learned Advocate for the petitioner, is that this order was not justified in the facts and circumstances of this case. We cannot possibly agree with such a contention, because the respondent No, 4 has set up a case that the petitioner had transferred the plot in his favour. In fact, the respondent No, 4 is anxious to have the opinion of a handwriting expert to substantiate that the transfer document is in the hand of the petitioner himself. As such respondent claims an interest in the subject-matter of the litigation, and he could not have been kept away from this litigation, which was pending between the petitioner and the Society, subsequently converted into an authority. Even the Deputy Registrar had passed an order to that effect, and, in our opinion, an order of remand w eminently the most justifiable order in the circumstances of this case.
6. ' The next contention of the learned Advocate is that the litigation, that had been started before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies by application under section 54-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, was no maintainable. This objection does not appear to have been raised before the Deputy Registrar. And, by a reading of the order, it appears to us that the petitioner had, indeed, submitted to the jurisdiction. The petitioner has not produced before us memo. Of the appeal filed before the Secretary of the Co-operative Department under section 61-A of the Co-operative Societies Act to show that he had challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar. Even on a reading of the order of the Executive Board of the Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority, we find that no challenge has been offered to the authority of the Deputy Registrar. Be that as it may, the case, that was pending before the Secretary of the Co-operative Department, stood transferred to the Executive Board of the Defence Officers' Authority by operation of law, and such Authority has the power to deal with disputes of such nature, regardless of what may have been the status of the other functionaries, who had, earlier, been dealing with such case.
7. ' We find no substance even in this contention.
8. ' No other point has been raised before us. We, therefore, dismiss this petition in limine.