' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.-The petitioner was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1869 by the respondent No,3. The first election of the Governing Body of the petitioner were held in 1967. The new elections were not held with the result that respondent No,3 issued a show cause notice as to why the then Governing-Body may not be dissolved. The then Secretary of the petitioner Mr. A.H.K. Hanafi (now expired) arranged election of the Governing Body and Mr. Hanafi was again elected as Secretary. The respondent No,3 questioned the legality of these elections. Mr. Hanafi submitted his reply. The Respondent No,3 being not satisfied with the explanation superseded the then management by Notification, dated 10-9-1975 and appointed Mr. Shaukat Ali then Registrar of the Board as Administrator of the petitioner's Society who hold the charge of Management and arranged for fresh elections of the Governing Body. A large number of Homoeopathic doctors who are eligible to become members of the petitioner's Society were deprived of their rights by the defunct management. Elections were held and same persons were re-elected. Mr. Shaukat Ali issued a public notice inviting application from all eligible Homoeopathic doctors desiring to become member of the petitioner's Society but Mr. Hanafi filed a Civil Suit against respondent 2 and 3 as well as then Administrator of the petitioner's Society challenging the legality not only of the new enrolments but the very appointment of the Administrator. The defendants filed their written statements. In the meanwhile respondent No,2 relieved Mr. Shaukat Ali from the Administratorship of the petitioner's Society and in his place appointed Mr. Mirza Jaffer Hussain as Administrator. Mr. Jaffer Hussain held elections of the president and members of the Governing Body of the petitioner's Society. The result was notified by the Government on 7-1-1979. The new elected Governing Body took the charge from the Administrator and also contested the Civil Suit. The Civil Suit was decided on 16-2-1982 determining against issues that the dissolution of the Managing Committee of the petitioner's Society by the respondent No,3 was valid and legal, but determining the issue No,2 about inviting applications for enrolment of new members by the Administrator was declared illegal. The answer to issue No,3 was that the enrolment of new members was ultra vires and as such they would not become members of the Board of the Society. While deciding issue No,4 the learned Civil Judge issued permanent injunction restraining the increase of membership of the Society but further added a sentence and advised that the defendants should reconsider the impugned notification in the light of section 16-A as substituted in March, 1976 and regularised the action accordingly.
2. The present elected Governing Body challenged the second part of the judgment and decree before the VI Additional District Judge. Alongwith the appeal an application under Order XLI, Rule 5, C.P.C. Was also filed praying for an interim order staying the operation of the second part of the judgment.
3. The prayer made in this petition is that a direction be made to the Additional District Judge that Appeal No,291 of 1982 may finally decide the appeal after hearing the appellants according to law without insisting op waiting for bringing the heirs of the deceased Mr. A.H.K. Hanafi, or that the case be withdrawn to this Court and determine the matter itself. The further prayer made in the petition is that the second part of the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge against issues Nos.2 and 3 is illegal and the present management is fully empowered and authorised as per rules and regulations.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main grievance is that the learned District Judge has not granted the stay in terms of the prayer made by the petitioner and that the appeal has not been disposed .Of. A Civil Suit was filed in the matter and the judgment and decree was passed by the Civil Court. Against the decree an appeal has been filed which is still pending adjudication before the Additional District Judge. For the early hearing of the appeal the petitioner could move the concerned Court and if the interim relief has not been granted to the petitioner it has the remedy before the appropriate Court against the said order. The petitioner has also a remedy by way of application for transfer of the case from one Court to another if he could satisfy the Court that reasons exist for the transfer of the case. The petitioner has himself submitted to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which is a proper forum in the matter and in this Constitution petition the petitioner has not been able t show that the two Courts below have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that it has no alternate remedy. The contention which the petitioner has raised before us can well be raised before the Additional District Judge in whose Court the case is pending. For early hearing of the appeal the petitioner could move the Additional District Judge and even to the High Court. Similarly if he is aggrieved against the order of the Additional District Judge then such order can be challenged by way of revision. The disputed questions which the petitioner ha alleged in this petition cannot be considered by this Court.
5. For all the aforesaid reasons the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed as such.