1. ' This order will govern the disposal of C.M.As. Nos. 3884, 3885 and 4014 of 1983, filed by the plaintiff and C. M. A. No, 4013/1983 which is filed by the defendant. In C. M. A. No, 3884/1983 the plaintiff has claimed interim injunction restraining the defendant from posting himself as Chairman/ President of Saharanpur Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Karachi. In C. M. A. No, 3885/1983 the plaintiff has prayed for appointment of Receiver to take control of the office of the Society situated in Room No, 2, Ist Floor, Aurangzeb Market, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, alongwith all the account books and record of Society. C. M. As. Nos. 3884 and 3885/ 1983 were filed by the plaintiff alongwith the suit and when these two applications came up before me for orders I directed notice of these applications to defendant for 21st November, 1983 and meanwhile appointed Nazir of this Court as Commissioner to prepare an inventory of books of account and other record lying in the office of the Society allegedly situated in Room No, 2, Aurangzeb Market, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi. It appears that the above order for preparation of inventory could not be given effect to, as the defendant who is a practising lawyer took the stand, when Nazir went for preparation of inventory that the address shown by the plaintiff is incorrect as the office of the Society was shifted two years back to Iqbal Road, near Malir Cantt., Karachi. The defendant also stated before the Nazir that the office which is alleged to be the office of the Society is his own office where he is carrying on his professional work and the files and regitsers which are lying there related to his clients. As the Nazir could not prepare the inventory on account of above objection of the defendant he submitted his report to that effect and plaintiff accordingly filed C. M. A. No, 4041/1983 praying for an action against the defendant for allegedly violating and obstructing the order passed by the Court for preparation of inventory. Simultaneously the defendant filed application (C. M. A. No, 4013/1983) under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint on the ground that the suit is barred under section 70-A, read with section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui and Mr. Khalilur Rehman and Mr. Usman Ghani, for the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively. The plaint in the suit is signed by one Yousuf Hussain Khan son of Ata Hussain Khan, who claims himself to be the Honorary Secretary of the Society. It is alleged that in the year 1975 after the demise of Azizul Haq who was the first Chairman of the Society the defendant was elected as Chairman. It is further alleged that Room No, 2, first floor, Aurangzeb Market, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, which was the registered address of the Society was established by the defendant after borrowing a sum of Rs, 2 Lac from Shah Haroon Co-operative Housing Society. In para. 7 of the plaint it is alleged that the defendant as Chairman of the Society took several steps which were against the interest of the Society and as an example it is stated that the plots reserved for the Society' office and for water work and electric sub-station were disposed of by the defendant to private parties. It is also alleged that the defendant illegally sold several plots of land in the Society which actually did not exist on site by assigning them false numbers and also executed leases of such plots in favour of the parties. The particulars of such alleged bogus plots are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint. There are several other allegations made in paragraphs 9 to 12 which relate to the mismanagement of the affairs of the Society by the defendant, In paragraph 13 it is alleged that 4 meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society was called on 11th March, 1983 and the defendant was informed about the said meeting but the defendant instead of attending the said meeting challenged the legality of the same and sent a telegram to the plaintiff. In paragraph 14 it is alleged that the aforesaid meeting called on 11th March, 1983 was attended by some of the members and a copy of the resolution passed in the aforesaid meeting was sent to the defendant under a registered A/D letter but the defendant refused to accept the same. It is accordingly stated in paragraph 16 that as a result of the above resolution passed by the Society certain consequences have flown which are enumerated in sub- paragraphs (a) to ( f) of paragraph 16 and which included the removal of the defendant as a Chairman and rendition of account by him for the alleged illegal sale of the property of the Society.
3. In the prayer clause the following prayers are made against the defendant :- "That the plaintiff prays for judgment and decree against the defendant as follows :-
(a) For accounts and recovery of the amounts found due against the defendant.
(b) For restoration of the possession of office of the Society at Room No, 2, 1st Floor of Aurangzeb Market, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi.
(c) For restoration of record, accounts books, assets and properties in possession of the defendant.
(d) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant from posing himself as Chairman/President of the Saharanpur Co-operative Housing Society Limited and interfering in the Business, Affairs and Workings of the Society.
(e) Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization on the amounts found due against the defendant.
4. ( f) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.
(g) Cost of, the suit."
5. ' The defendant in his counter-affidavit has denied that he has been removed as Chairman of the Society and has taken the plea that the dispute with regard to the holding of general body meeting of Society is presently under consideration of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. He has filed alongwith his counter-affidavit a letter issued by the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, dated 15th April, 1983 whereunder Asrar Azam Burney Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karachi under rule 6 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1927 read with section 13 (2) of the Co- operative Societies Act, 1927, had requisitioned the special general body meeting for holding elections of the President and the Managing Committee of the Society and had authorised Sajad Raza, Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies under rule 6-A of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1927, to convene the said meeting within two months of this order for transacting the aforesaid business. On the same date the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karachi. Also issued a letter to the defendant and the plaintiff and one Zarif Ahmed Thanvi of the Society prohibiting them to call any meeting of the Managing Committee or general body severally or jointly, directly or indirectly till further orders and any action taken by them shall be treated as illegal and unauthorised. No rejoinder denying these allegations made in the counter-affidavit, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff. In the other counter-affidavit which the defendant has filed in reply to the application of plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX, rule 2 (3), C. P. C., the defendant has denied that any of the records of the Society is in his possession or control. He has stated that the record of Society is in fact in the possession and charge of the Honorary Secretary of the Society Mr. Mazhar Hussain Rehmani. It is also stated by the defendant in the above counter-affidavit that the premises namely, Room No, 2, Aurangzeb Market, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, has two separate portions and one of these portions is in his exclusive possession as an Advocate where he is carrying on his professional work and the other portion is occupied by the Honorary Secretary of the Society Mr. Mazhar Hussain Rehmani. It is claimed that both these portions are separate and independent and having separate locks and doors. It is claimed by the defendant that the office of the Society was shifted two years ago at Iqbal Road, near Malir Cantt. Where registered office of the Society is presently functioning. No rejoinder affidavit to this counter-affidavit also, has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit. In his application under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. The defendant has taken the stand that the suit is barred under section 70-A read with section 54 of the Co-operatives Societies Act, 1925. In reply to the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that prayers in the suit are such which cannot be granted by the functionaries acting under the Co-operative Societies Act, and therefore, the suit is not hit by section 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act. I have already mentioned in detail the facts mentioned in the plaint which formed the basis of present suit and after reading the same I am in no doubt that all the allegations made in the plaint relate to the business of the Society. It is not disputed by the plaintiff that the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies has already restrained the defendant and the plaintiff both from taking any action with regard to the holding of general body meeting or the meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society and has appointed one of its officers to hold these meetings under his supervision. According to the alleged resolution of Society, dated 12th March, 1983 relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, only the defendant has been suspended from acting as the Chairman of the Society. It is not disputed before me that the general body meeting of the Society contemplated in the said resolution could not be held as a result of intervention of the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, in the matter who authorized one of its officials to call the said meeting for the purposes of electing the President and the Managing Committee of the Society. In view of this admitted position there is no doubt that the bar contained I section 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act is fully attracted in the circumstances of the case as the dispute raised in the plaint is certain! One which touches the business of the Society and is covered by section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In fact the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is already seized of the dispute between the parties.
6. I accordingly reject the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. As a result of rejection of the plaint the applications under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 and under Order XL, rule 1, C. P. C. (C. M. A. No, 3884/1983 and 3885/1983 filed by the plaintiff are also rejected. In so for the application for taking action for the alleged violation of the order of the Court (C. M. A. No, 4041/1983) against the defendant is concerned it will suffice to say that the contention of the defendant that the office of the Society was shifted two years ago to another place namely, Iqbal Road, near Malir Cantonment is not without substance. In the title of the plaint the office address of the Society is shown as Iqbal Road, near Malir Cantt., Karachi. Similarly the letter, dated 12th March, 1983 written by the plaintiff to the defendant immediately before filing of the suit also discloses the address of the Society as Iqbal Road, near Malir Cantt. The copy of the resolution, dated 31st March, 1983 whereby the filing of the present suit is authorised against the defendant though typed on a letter head which shows the address as Room No,
2. Aurangzeb Market, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, but it also bears the seal of Society which shows the present address of Society near Malir Cantt. University Road, Karachi.
7. The defendant in his counter-affidavit has categorically stated that the premises namely No, 2, Aurangzeb Market, M. A. Jinnah Road, Karachi, has two separate portions and one of these is exclusively occupied by him where he is carrying on his professional work as an Advocate whereas the other portion is occupied by Mazhar Hussain, who is the Honorary Secretary of the Society. It is also stated in the said counter-affidavit by the defendant that both these portions have separate doors and locks. No rejoinder was filed by the plaintiff denying these facts. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the defendant while objecting to the preparation of inventory by the Nazir committed any contempt of the orders of this Court. In fact the plaintiff while obtaining order for preparation of inventory did not disclose full facts. I accordingly reject C. M. A. No, 4041/ 1983 also.