1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J---Leave was granted to the appellant in the above appeal against the judgment of High Court of Sindh, in Constitutional Petition No,D-972 of 1986 dated 4-10-1989, as under:- "Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the dispute in the case was with regard to the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff was given membership of the respondent-Society?
(2) Whether there is a provision in the Bye-Laws that only a Memon can become the member of the Society?
(3) Whether the elected Management Committee cancelled the membership of the plaintiff?
(4) What should be the award?
2. Learned counsel points out that by orders passed by the Provincial Minister dated Ist September, 1986 in exercise of powers under section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, he remanded the case to the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies for fresh disposal, but the High Court, however, in a Constitution petition filed at the instance of Barkat All Issani respondent took the view that the sole dispute between the parties relates to entitlement of Barkat All Issani's membership and proceeds to decide this issue ignoring the fact that this could not be the subject-matter of adjudication in Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court and also that there were other crucial issues which had to be decided in the case. This plea amongst other deserves consideration. We therefore grant leave to appeal. Security Rs,5,000.
3. ' The appeal will be heard on the present record but it is open to the parties to file additional documents, if any."
4. ' The brief facts of the case are that one Abdul Razzak son of Hussain was allotted a plot of land measuring 240 sq. Yards by the petitioner without assigning any number. Respondent No,1 purchased this unnumbered plot from said Abdul Razzak and applied to the appellant for the membership of the Society. Respondent No,1 was admitted to the membership of appellant on 11- 5-1982. As a consequence of admission of respondent No,1 as member of the appellant, the allotment of plot from the name of said Abdul Razzak son of Hussain was also transferred in favour of respondent No,1. Respondent No,1 then sent a notice to the appellant through his counsel calling upon the appellant to disclose the number of plot allotted to him. The appellant in reply took the stand that respondent No,1 was not entitled to become member of the appellant as he was not a `Memon'. Respondent No,1 then invoked section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and the matter was referred to the arbitrators. The arbitrators, after recording evidence in the case, by majority gave an award in favour of respondent No,1 on 4-4-1985. The appellant filed an application under section 54-A of the Act for setting aside the award, before the Registrar which was dismissed by respondent No,3 on 24-12- 1985. The appellant then filed a Revision Application under section 64-A of the Act before respondent No,2 which was accepted on 1-9-1986 and the case was remanded to respondent No,3.
5. Respondent No,1 challenged the order of respondent No,2 in a Constitutional petition which was accepted by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh and the order of respondent No,2 was quashed, giving rise to the present appeal.
6. ' Mr. Latif A. Shakoor, the learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the High Court could not interfere with the order of remand passed by respondent No,2 as there was neither any error of jurisdictional character nor any perversity in the said order. The learned counsel contended that respondent No,3 arbitrarily denied opportunity to the appellant to produce the evidence in support of their contention that the allotment relied by respondent No,1 was forged and fictitious document, as such respondent No,2 rightly intervened and set aside the order of respondent No,3 and remanded the case for fresh decision in accordance with law.
7. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of High Court. It is quite clear from the record before us that respondent No,1 after he was admitted as a member of the appellant Society, served notice on the appellant to disclose number of the plot which he had purchased from Abdul Razzak son of Hussain. The appellant in reply took the plea that respondent No,1 not being `Memon' could not become a member of the Society and as such he was not entitled to the allotment of the plot. It is significant that in its reply dated 23-12- 1984, which was sent through an advocate, the appellant did not dispute the allotment of plot in favour of Abdul Razzak son of Hussain. The appellant's only objection in the reply notice was the said Abdul Razzak son of Hussain was not competent to transfer the plot in favour of respondent No,1 who was a non`Memon'. The further plea taken by the appellant in that notice was, that the transfer of the said plot in favour of respondent No,1 approved by the Administrator of the Society was contrary to the Bye-Laws of the Society and that the present management of the Society was proposing to take action against the former Administrator of the Society. It is, therefore, quite clear that at that stage the appellant did not raise the plea that no plot was allotted by the Society in favour of Abdul Razzak son of Hussain or that the allotment in favour of respondent No,1 which was as a result of admitting respondent No,1 as member of the Society was fictitious and fraudulent. In proceedings under section 54 of the Act, also, the plea taken by the appellant before the arbitrators was, that respondent No,1 could not be admitted as member of the appellant as he was a non-Memon'. This plea was found against the appellant by the arbitrators through the majority award. The Deputy Registrar, under section 54-A of the Act refused to interfere with the majoriy award in the case and dismissed the application of the appellant under section 54-A of the Act. It may also be mentioned here that respondent No,1 in paragraphs 1 to 8 of his application under section 54 of the Act had set out all these facts in detail. The appellant in their written statement filed before the Deputy Registrar in reply to the application under section 54 of the Act filed by respondent No,1, admitted the contents of paragraphs 1 to 8 of the application. It is, therefore, quite clear that neither allotment in favour of Abdul Razzak son of Hussain was disputed nor it was in dispute that the said Abdul Razzak had transferred the plot allotted to him in favour of respondent No,1. In these circumstances, the plea taken by the appellant before the respondent No,2 that the allotment in favour of respondent No,1 was bogus and fictitious as Abdul Razzak son of Hussain had allegedly sworn an affidavit that he was never allotted any plot by the appellant Society, was contrary to the pleadings of appellant and the admitted position on record. Keeping in view the above admitted position in the case, the High Court rightly held that the remand order passed by respondent No,2 was outside the scope of pleadings of the parties and declared the same without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The order passed by the High Court was not only just and equitable in the circumstances of the case but it also did not suffer from any legal infirmity. No case for interference is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case we will make no order as to costs.