1. ' This revision application is directed against the order of learned VIth Additional District Judge, Karachi, dated 31-5-1984 whereby the learned Judge set aside the order of the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, dated 14-5-1978 rejecting the plaint filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts leading to this litigation are that a plot No. 2578-D was allotted to one Nawab Ali an employee of P.I.B. Co-operative Housing Society, which plot Nawab All sold to one Shakir Ali through broker Tausif Ahmed who is the respondent in this application. Shakir Ali, after purchase of plot, applied to the Society for the possession and demarcation of the said plot. According to the terms of the allotment the allottee had to obtain the possession at his own risk and cost. The plot was at the relevant time in occupation of some unauthorised persons and, therefore, the Society showed its inability to comply with the request of Shakir Ali. Society had been superseded and its administration was taken over by the Government, who had appointed the applicant as administrator. Shakir Ali made complaint against the applicant to the higher authorities, whereupon the applicant- wrote a letter to Shakir All explaining= the position. This letter admittedly contained a portion to which the respondent had taken objection and which, is reproduced as below:- ' "However, it has been brought to my notice that the same transaction of the aforesaid plot, between the seller Mr. Nawab Ali the ex-employee of the society and you was made through Tausif Ahmed, Broker and he.In collusion with Mr. Nawab Ali had cheated you."
3. ' One Qamar Saeed Farooqui, who was acting as attorney for Shakir Ali, on receipt of this letter issued notice to the respondent informing him that it is alleged by Society that he had cheated Shakir Ali and, therefore, asked explanation for the same. The respondent therefore, filed a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge claiming Rs. 25,000 as special and general damages for causing damage to his reputation. The applicant moved application under Order 7 Rule 11, C.P.C. Before the trial Court contending that the suit was barred under sections 54, 70 and 70-A of Co-operative Societies Act, 1955. The learned trial Court accepting the pleas of the applicant rejected the plaint, which order was set aside by the learned Appellate Court vide the impugned judgment.
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records and proceedings of the Courts below.
5. ' Under section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act notice before the filing of suit is required in respect of any act touching the business of Society. Similarly under section 70-A the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred from disposing of or determining any question or matter which the Provincial Government or the Registrar or his nominee or any arbitrator are empowered under the Societies ,Act to determine and dispose of and from challenging the validity of anything done or orders passed by the said authorities under this Act or rules framed thereunder.
6. ' It is not disputed that the letter that was written by the applicant to the Shakir Ali was an act done under this Act, as a reply had to be made to Shakir Ali with regard to his demand for demarcation and possession of the plot. It is, however, contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, that the expression of opinion that the respondent had cheated Shakir Ali in the letter cannot be considered to be an act done b the applicant in the discharge of his duty under this Act, nor it on be considered as an act touching the business of the Society. {{PAGE CUT}} ' It is contended by the les the applicant was acting in exec under section 54 of the Act whit no matter for arbitration was re dealing with only application of demarcation of the plot sold to hi( ' Reliance is placed on P observed in the said case. "It I Society which require the harge respect of any act touching th further observed "that phrase 'to be given a restricted meaning, meaning and upon reasonable co acts which are necessary", ' It is argued that it was 1 the duty for the applicant to 11:1 against the respondent while .An-1 a member for possession and dem: that this act of the applicant ca in the discharge of his official business of the society, or an under section 54 of the Co-onerat ' It is altogether a harge able to prove if any damage I character or whether he has si what extent, but per se the ac of cheating against the respon person cannot get benefit of Se Societies Act and the suit is ni of law. I find no merits in this R4 dismissed with no order as to c( ' The Revision Application 6-4-1987. Above are the reasons 'ruled counsel for the applicant that cise of powers conferred upon him 4h refers to arbitration. Admittedly ferred to the applicant but he was Shakir Ali for the possession and by Nawab Ali. PLD 1975 Kar.
528. It has been not all suits instituted against the of notice but only such as are in 4 business of the Society. It was ching the business of Society' cannot but should be given a reasonable struction it would include all those lot necessary for the performance of ve harge an allegation of cheating veering or replying to the demand of Lrcation cf the plot., It is contended, not be considered to be an act done duty or an act which touches the act done in exercise of its power ive Societies Act.
7. 4nt question whether respondent is caused to his reputation or to his fered any monetary damages and to of the applicant in hargeg harge ant and communicating it to a third :ions 70 or 70-A of the Co-operative per se barred by these provisions ision Application which is was dismissed by short order dated in support of the said order.