' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---The dispute in this case relates to the allotment of land under 15-Years Scheme. The history of the case is chequered' and has been dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No, 136 of 1975.
' Without further going into the details of the history of the allotment, suffice it would be to mention that on 18-4-1973, The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division, cancelled the allotment of the entire village and the case was remanded to the Collector.
2. Initially, the Collector, Jauharabad vide his order dated 28-5-1971 granted State land to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 on lease under 15-Years Temporary Cultivation Scheme, whereas, petitioner No,3 was found ineligible and was refused to have State land under that Scheme. In review, the learned Collector cancelled the allotment of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 also vide his order dated 9-7- 1971 by holding that they were not eligible being minors at the time of allotment and thus were not in cultivating possession. All the three petitioners aggrieved by this order went in appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner established by the petitioners and Sh. Inayat Hussain, respondent No,3 herein, applied for sanction of credit limit of rs15,00,000 on which a limit of rsl 0,00,000 was sanctioned by the Managing Committee of the respondent No,2. The respondent No,2 advanced a loan .Of rs2,60,000 against security of goods from November 1959 to April 1961 to the said firm through their Manager Sh. Talemand. It is alleged that the pledged goods were stolen from the godowns of the factory. Consequently, a criminal case was registered against the culprits and notice under section 5 of the West' Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966, was issued to the petitioners and respondent No,3. The petitioners as well as respondent No,3, however, denied their liability on the ground that the loan was obtained by Sh. Talemand as the lessee of the factory and not in his capacity as Manager of their firm. Eventually the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rawalpindi, on the basis of material available or record, by order dated 25-6-1970 held that the petitioners and respondent No,3 were neither borrowers nor the beneficiaries and, as such, were not liable to pay the disputed amount of loan to the respondent No,2 It was further held that it was Sh. Talemand and the Bank officials who were liable to make good the loss sustained by respondent No,2 and action should be taken against them in accordance with law. On revision, the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 9-A (2) of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966, after re-appreciation of material available on record and providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the parties, recorded a finding of tact that Sh. Talemand obtained a loan amounting to about rs2,60,000 between November 1959 to April 1961 from the Bank in finis capacity as Manager of M/s Pak Japan. Industrial Cotton Corporation on the basis of an authority letter issued by Ch. Manzur Illahi, petitioner herein, one of the constituents of the partnership firm. It was further held that the liability of the petitioners and respondent No,3 to pay the amount of loan with interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt.
Consequently, the order dated 25-6-1970, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, absolving the petitioners and respondent No,3 herein of the liability to pay the loan was declared as illegal, patently wrong, perversive and dishonest. The revision petition filed by respondent No,2 was accepted holding that M/s Michimen and Company (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi, Ch. Manzur Illahi and Sh. Inayat Hussain are liable jointly and severally to pay rs3,11, 285 as principal and rs2,04,222 as interest upto 31-3-1972 to respondent No,2 with future interest till the payment of the entire amount of loan.
3. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 25-6-1970 had attained finality and constituted a past and closed transaction before the enforcement of the Amending Ordinance No,3 of 1972 providing for revision under section 9-A thereof and, as such, the order of the Deputy Registrar could not be reopened under the aforesaid amending provisions. The contention is devoid of any force. This was within the competence of the Legislature which could make the law retrospectively or prospectively.
4. It is true that in general, when substantive law is altered during the pendency of an action, the rights of the parties are decided according to the law as it existed when the action was begun, unless the new statute shows a clear intention to vary such rights. Here section 2 of the Amending Ordinance No,III of 1972 shows that section 9-A "shall be deemed always to have been so added". In Hassan and others v. Fancy Foundation PLD 1975 SC 1 it was held that section 5 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Ordinance (XXI of 1965) whereby a new provision as subsection (5-B) to section 13 was added to the West Pakistan Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 (W.P.Ordinance VI of 1959), was prospective and could not be given retrospective effect in absence of the words, "shall be deemed always to have been so substituted". In the instant case, in view of clear and unambiguous language used in the newly added section 2 of the Amending Ordinance that section 9-A shall be deemed always to have been so added, we are inclined to hold that it retrospectively confers a right on the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, to exercise revision power in respect of decision/award made prior or subsequent to the promulgation of the Amending Ordinance.
5. It is next contended that the impugned order is based on misreading of evidence in so far as determination of liability against the petitioners is concerned. We, however, do not find any misreading. The contention raised by the petitioners relates to appreciation of evidence which cannot be undertaken in these proceedings. The controversy raised herein is concluded by a finding of fact which is not open to scrutiny in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.