AJMAL MIAN, C.J.--This petition is directed against the order dated 28-9-1980, passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of revisional power under section 64 A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent 2 claimed to be member of 'tile petitioner's society, namely, PECHS hereinafter referred to as the Society) since 1950. On the basis of the above membership, he claimed allotment of a plot from the society inasmuch as he applied on 7-11-1973 for the allotment of a plot measuring 1000 S.1. Yards. Since the plot was not allotted, he invoked arbitration. The matter was referred by the Registrar to his nominee, who by his award dated 13-1-1979 allowed respondent No.2's claim for the allotment of the plot and directed the society to allot him a plot.
Against the above award, the petitioner society filed an appeal under section 56 of the Act, which was disposed of by respondent No.3, by his order dated 29-8--1979, whereby he modified the award to the extent i.e. It was to be verified from the Federal Government, whether factually respondent No.2 was in service as claimed by him and that his entitlement to the plot would be considered by the Society after the above verification. Against the above order, respondent No.2 filed aforesaid revision which was allowed by respondent No.1, by the impugned order dated 28-9- 1980 and, whereby, the Society was directed to allot a residential plot within a period of one month.
Against the above order, the Society has filed the present petition.
2. In support of the above petition, Mr. Abdus Sattar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged as follows:-- (i)That respondent No.2's aforesaid revision petition was not competent under section 64-A.
(ii)That in any case the respondent 2's membership was to be verified after making reference to the Federal Government on the question whether he was in the service of the Government of Pakistan or not.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Arif Bilal Sherwani, learned counsel for respondent 2, has submitted as under:- (i)That respondent 2's aforesaid revision petition was competent; and (ii)that there is a concurrent finding of the Registrar's nominee and respondent 1 that factually the respondent 2 was a member of the Society and, therefore, the reference to the Federal Government on the question whether respondent 2 was in employment of the Federal Government was not warranted.
4. Adverting to the first submission of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be observed that in respect of aforesaid first submission, Mr. Abdus Sattar has referred to a Judgment of a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, namely, in the case of Shaikh Haider v. Registrar Cooperative Societies Karachi and others reported in PLD 1966 (W.P.) Karachi 177, in which Wahiduddin Ahmed (as his lordship then was) after quoting section 64-A of the Act, had held that the Registrar was not entitled to pass any order ii a case in which reference was pending before a nominee and that Section 64-A a intended to cover cases where the proceedings pending before any officer subordinate to the Registrar i.e. The scrutiny of any administrative or departmental enquiry or proceedings pending before the subordinate officers.
The facts of the above case arc distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as in the aforesaid case the Registrar passed the order while reference was pending before his nominee for adjudication, whereas, in the instant case revision was filed against the appellate order passed by the Deputy Registrar upon appeal filed by the Society. Mr. Arif Bilal Sherwani has referred to section 57 of the Act which provides, "The award of arbitration or a decision by the Registrar or his nominee under section 54 or section 54-A or an order passed in appeal by the Registrar under section 56 shall, subject to the provisions of section 64 and 64-A, be final and conclusive and shall not be 1i;,the to be called in question in any civil or review Court". Reference to section 64-A in the above section 57 is clearly an A indicative of the fact that a revision will be competent against an appellate order passed by the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar. We arc, therefore, of the view that the respondent 2's aforesaid revision petition was competent.
5. As regards the second submission of Mr. Abdul Sattar that in any case the respondent 2's membership was to be verified after making reference to the Federal Government on the question, whether he was in the service of the Government of Pakistan or not, it may be observed that the nominee of the Registrar found as a question of fact that factually respondent 2 was a member of the Society against the surrendered membership of Mr. Mohammad Buqrat who had Membership No. 1154. The above finding of fact has been concurred by the revisional authority and, therefore, the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction cannot reverse the above finding of fact. Additionally, in support of his contention B that the respondent 2 was in fact a member of the Society in 1949, the respondent 2 has produced a number of documents alongwith the counter affidavit. In our view, it is not necessary to examine the merit of those documents.
6. Before parting with the above discussion, we may observe that it seems that the plot which was available with the Society had been allotted by the Society to some one and the allotment of which according to the learned counsel for respondent 2 was cancelled. According to the learned counsel for respondent 2, a writ petition is pending in respect of the above cancellation of the allotment. We C would while maintaining the order of the respondent 1 would modify the order to the extent that respondent 2 would be given the plot when a residential plot is available either because of the failure of the writ petition or any other reason any other plot becomes available.
The petition stands dismissed with the above observation with no order as to costs.