' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.--The petitioner is an association registered under Voluntary Social Welfar Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961 (Ordinance XLVI of 1961). It has a written and approved constitution copy of which has been filed with the petition. The Petition has been filed through its Secretary who has alleged that respondent No,1 in violation of the provisions, by an order passed on 21st January, 1988, the Registration Authority/Director Social Welfare, Government of Sindh has suspended the executive committee of the petitioner with immediate effect and also a pointed Ghulam Kadir Brohi, Social Welfare Officer, Civil Lines, Sub-Division, Karachi as Administrator under subsection (2) of section 9 of the said Ordinance to look after and streamline the affairs of the association till the election. This order has categorised the charges, including the failure to establish social service except school failure to conduct elections of the executive committee, failure to maintain proper accounts/ records, failure to furnish annual progress report and audited statement of accounts, failure to enrol members and to maintain record of Rs, 15,000 released to the petitioner from Zakat Fund for Mustahqeen.
' After this order was served and respondent No, 2 was appointed Administrator, the petitioner made representations but no further steps were taken as required by section 9 of the Ordinance.
The respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit but Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Assistant Advocate-General admits that impugned letter dated 24th January, 1988 suspending the executive committee was issued and Administrator has been appointed.
' Mr. Muniruddin Alvi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of suspension is without jurisdiction as it violates the principles of natural justice and was passed without making any enquiry as provided by section 9. There is nothing on record to show that any enquiry was held in the affairs of the petitioner or that any show-cause notice was issued to it before passing order of suspension. The impugned order itself refers to an enquiry but nothing has been produced on record to show in what matter, on what basis, and for what purposes the enquiry was held. The holding of enquiry has been challenged by the petitioner but the respondents have not even denied much less to rebut it. Section 9 of Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and Control) Ordinance, 1961 reads as under:-- 9.--(1) If, after making such enquiries as it may think fit, the Registration Authority is satisfied that a registered agency has been responsible for any irregularity in respect of its funds or for any maladministration in the conduct of its affairs or.Has failed to comply with the provisions of this Mst. Khurshid Begum etc. v. Mst. Ghulam Kubra etc. 1982 SCMR 90 distinguished.
A.K.M. Hashmi for Petitioners.
S.M. Saied for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Date of hearing: 26th October, 1989.
JUDGMENT.
' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 5-9-1984, passed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge, Karachi, in Civil Revision Application No,155/1983, allowing the revision of respondent No,1 against the order dated 18-10-1983 dismissing her objections in Execution Application No,8/1983.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the present petitioners filed Suit No,413/1971 against respondents Nos.2 and 3 for possession of plot of land, bearing No,392, measuring 160 square yards, situated in Sector 11-G, North Karachi Township. The above suit was resisted by the above respondents Nos.2 and 3 and inter alia it was pleaded that they were factually in possession of Plot No,551 which was allotted by respondents Nos.3 and 4 along with their mother, respondent No,1. The suit, proceeded and eventually it was decreed on 10-9-1975.
Against the above judgment/decree, respondents No,2 and 3 filed Civil Appeal No,214/1975 which was dismissed on 15-7-1976. Then respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed Civil Revision No,107/1982, which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, by a judgment dated 8-11-1982. After the above round of litigations, the petitioners filed aforesaid Execution Application No,8/1983. In the above Execution Application, respondent No,1 filed objections averring therein that she was co- allottee of Plot No,551 with respondents Nos.2 and 3 and that she was not impleaded as a party to the suit and, therefore, the judgment and decree was not binding. However, the above objections were dismissed by the learned Executing Court by its order dated 18-10-1983. Thereupon, respondent No,1 filed aforesaid Civil Revision Application No,155/1983 which had been allowed. The above petitioners, being aggrieved by the above order, have filed the present petition.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr.A.K.M. Hashmi, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently urged as follows:-
(i) That since the petitioners were not claiming the possession of Plot No,551, respondent No,1 had no cause of action for filing objections.
(ii) That in any case her interest was represented by respondent No,2 who was the son of respondent No,1.
4. Adverting to the first above submission that since the petitioners were not claiming the possession of Plot No,551, respondent No,1 had no cause of action for filing objections, it may be observed that from the appellate order passed in Civil Appeal No,214 of 1975 by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi, it seems that one of the controversies in the suit was whether the respondents Nos.2 and 3 got the number of the plot changed from 392 to 551 and that they had unauthorisedly occupied above Plot No,392 in collusion with respondents Nos.4 and 5. In other words, one of the issues was whether respondents Nos.2 and 3 were in possession of the plot for which suit was filed. Even if we were to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that respondents No,1, 2 and 3 were the allottees of above Plot No,551, but the fact remains that they were claiming the possession of the plot which was in their possession and which they claim as Plot No,551. The fact that respondent No,1 was a co-allottee was disclosed by respondents No,2 and 3 in paragraph 4 of their written statement and, therefore, it was necessary that the petitioners should have impleaded respondent No,1 as well. The learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has allowed the objections on the above ground. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners as per his above second contention has vehemently contended that since respondent No,2 was the son of respondent No,1, she was effectively represented before the trial Court, appellate Court and revisional Court in the proceedings arising out of the Suit No,413 of 1971. In furtherance of his above submission, he has relied upon the case of Mst. Khurshid Bcgum etc. v. Mst. Ghulam Kubra etc., reported in 1982 SCMR 90. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the landlady and set aside the objections of an adult member of a tenant family which were allowed on the ground that he was not impleaded in the ejectment proceedings. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that since all the members of the family were living together including the adult member who had come forward with the objections after the passing of the ejectment order, his objections were not bona fide and, therefore, should not have been allowed by the High Court. The facts of the above case are distinguishable as there is no relationship inter se between the parties as of landlord and tenant and secondly, the case of the petitioners is that the respondents were trespassers over their plot.
5. Another question which requires consideration in the present case is, as to whether in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction we can set aside the impugned order as being without jurisdiction. The view found favour with the learned Additional District Judge is a view which could have been taken on the basis of the admitted facts and, therefore, it is not a case for exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.
6.