' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court whereby his Constitution petition was dismissed and order passed by respondent No.1 was upheld.
2. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No.2 laid information before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under section 54 of the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) stating that M/s. Pak- Japan Industrial Corporation comprising of M/s. Nichimen Company (Pakistan) Ltd., respondent No.4, Ch. Manzoor Elahi petitioner, and Sh. Inayat Hussain, respondent No.3 being its partners were liable to pay sum of Rs,4,37,831 and interest accrued thereon. Notice under section 5 of the Ordinance was issued to them and in reply the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 denied the liability. According to them the factory of Mandi Bahauddin which had obtained the loan had been leased out to one Talamand w.e.f, 1-7-1959 to 30-6-1961. An application was also made for action against the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 to refer the case to Martial Law Authorities under Martial Law Order No.18. Respondent No.3 filed application before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lahore, claiming that the liability of the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 should be determined first before referring the matter to the Summary Military Court. This application was dismissed on 23-2-1970 holding that he had no jurisdiction as the matter was pending before the Martial Law Authorities. It seems that the Martial Law Authorities issued directions to the Registrar to determine the liability before 30-6-1970 and proceed accordingly. The Deputy Registrar by his order dated 25-6-1970 held that petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 were not liable. He fixed the liability on Talemand and further ordered that he and the Bank officials should be made liable to compensate the Bank according to law.
3. In the year 1972 by West Pakistan Ordinance (III of 1972) section 9-A was added to the Ordinance which reads as follows:-- "9-A. Revision.-- (1) When any decision or award is made by the Registrar, the Government may, at any time, suo motu, call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceedings relating thereto for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of such decision or award.
(2) When any decision or award is made by a Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar or by an Assist ant Registrar, the Registrar may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or proceeding relating thereto for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of such decision or award.
(3) If, after examining the aforesaid record, the Government or the Registrar is of the opinion that any decision or award should be modified, annulled or reversed, the Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as may be deemed just and proper, and the order so passed shall be final and conclusive.
(4) Any order passed by the Registrar in exercise of his revisional powers shall not be further revisable by Government."
' The amending Ordinance further provided that the amendment shall be deemed to have been made from the date of enforcement of the Ordinance of 1966.
4. It seems that a revision petition was filed under section 9-A of the Ordinance which was allowed by the Registrar on 10-4-1972 whereby order dated 25-6-1970 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rawalpindi, was set aside. M/s. Pak-Japan Industrial Cotton Corporation which comprised of M/s. Nichimen Co. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi, Ch. Manzoor Elahi and Sh. Inayat Hussain, were held liable jointly and severally to pay Rs,3,11,285 as principal and Rs,2,04,222 as interest up to 31-3-1972 to the Bank with future interest till the payment of the entire amount of loan.
Petitioner and respondent No.4 filed Constitution Petition against this order which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
5. The learned counsel has contended that under section 9-A the Registrar was empowered to suo motu exercise revisional jurisdiction and not at the behest of any party. Section 9-A (1) empowers the Government to suo motu call for and examine the record of any proceedings at any time for satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of decision or award made by the Registrar. This suo mow power has been conferred on the Government and no time limit has been fixed for exercise of such power. This power can be exercised only when the Government deems it proper to consider the propriety or legality of any decision or award made by the Registrar. Therefore, subsection (1) will not apply to the present case as decision was made by the Deputy Registrar. Subsection (2) empowers the Registrar to call for and A examine the record in respect of decision or award made by a Deputy Registrar exercising the powers of the Registrar or by an Assistant Registrar. There is no restriction placed in this subsection that such power can be exercised suo mow only. It is an ordinary revisional jurisdiction conferred upon the Registrar and in the absence of any restriction as in subsection (1) any party aggrieved by the decision or award made by a Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar can approach the Registrar and file a revision application to challenge such decision or award. Therefore, the Registrar can act on a petition made by any party. The question whether suo motu power can be exercised on an application made by a party is not involved in this petition and is kept open.
6. The learned counsel contended that after the order by the Deputy Registrar had been made it was a past and closed transaction and revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised in such cases.
Ordinance III of 1972 while adding section 9-A provided that the new section shall be added and shall be deemed always to have been so added. Therefore, retrospective effect has been given to the operation of section 9-A from the date when the West Pakistan Cooperative Societies and Cooperative Banks (Repayment of Loans) Ordinance, 1966 was promulgated. The amendment was made in the year 1972 and immediately the Registrar on the petition filed, called for the record and passed the order. Therefore, the question of past and closed transaction does not arise.
7. The learned counsel contended that while recording finding adverse to the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and 4 in regard to their liability the Registrar had misread evidence. In this regard reference was made to documents Exhs. J1, J3, J5, J7, J8 and J11. A perusal of the order of the Registrar will show that he had taken pains to examine all these documents and many other documents produced in the matter. He had dealt with the question whether the signature denied by Ch. Manzoor Elahi was correct or not and after comparing with the admitted signature came to the conclusion that the documents bear his signature. On close scrutiny of the documents and examining the contentions raised by the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 and he fixed the liability for payment on them. The learned Judges of the High Court were justified in remarking that it was a case of appreciation of evidence and not a case of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record. We, therefore refuse to grant leave.