1. ' In this suit for the declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of documents the plaintiff has sought the following relief: "(i) A declaration that the plaintiff is the legal bona fide and lawful owner of the suit Plot No,31-A, in Block No,4, .K.D.A., Scheme 36, Gulistan-e-Jauhar admeasuring 200 Sq. Yds., in Saadabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
(ii) A declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to its lease from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 with clear and marketable title in her favour as such the defendants Nos.1 and 2 be directed to execute Registered Lease in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit plot.
(iii) A permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos.1 and 2, their agents, servants and persons acting through or under them from acting in any manner adverse to the interest of the plaintiff with regard to the suit plot and further restraining them from cancelling, re-allotting, alienating and or disposing of the suit plot and or dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit plot and or taking any action in any manner whatever.
(iv) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that if any document lease or transfer has been made by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit plot in favour of any other person other than the plaintiff, all such lease, transfer, conveyance deed and other acts etc., are liable to be cancelled being void, illegal and mala fide.
(v) A declaration that the actions on the part of the defendants under the impugned letters Annexure D, F and H are illegal, mala fide, arbitrary and are liable to be declared unlawful.
(vi) A declaration that the plaintiff, is entitled to true accounts, balance-sheet, break up and that the plaintiff is not at all liable to make any payment under the impugned notice Annexure 'D'."
2. ' The relevant facts as contained in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a bona fide Member of defendant No,1 since 1983. She was allotted a residential Plot No,31-A in Block-4, K.D.A. Scheme No,36, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, admeasuring 200 Sq. Yds. According to plaintiff she paid the total cost of the plot as well as other charges on 30-10-1983. It is averred that the plaintiff has been making further payments under various heads as and when called upon by the defendant No,
1. On 19-9- 1990 physical possession of the plot was delivered to the plaintiff. The husband of plaintiff was transferred and new address of the plaintiff was communicated to the defendant No,
1. However, the defendant No,1 sent a letter, dated 29-11-1999 at her old address calling upon to pay a sum of Rs,1,280 and Rs,16,500. According to plaintiff she was not liable to pay any amount. However, on receipt of above letter/notice she contacted defendant No,2 in his office. She offered the payment of Rs,17,780 as demanded but the defendant No,2 refused to receive the same and verbally directed the plaintiff to wait for the result of her request for condonation of delay. She was informed on 10-12-1999 -that her request will be placed in the next General Body Meeting for condonation of delay with regard to the payment of utility charges. It is further stated in the plaint that according to the best of her knowledge there are no dues or any amount outstanding against her on any account and the question of any utility charges does not arise when she is not using the plot in question and the defendant No,2 has not granted lease so far. The plaintiff thereafter sent a legal notice, dated 26-1-2000 addressed to defendant No,1 appraising the full facts and sent a Pay Order in the sum of Rs,17,780 for alleged dues which Pay Order is still in possession of defendants Nos.1 and 2. Copy of the notice was sent to defendant No,3 as well. It is further averred in the plaint that the letters dated 25-11-1999 and 10-12-1999 purportedly issued under the signature of defendant No,2 are fake and suspicious and, therefore, an inquiry be held into the genuineness of the letters.
3. The plaintiff has expressed apprehension that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 may illegally and in arbitrary manner dispose of the suit plot and hence this suit: It is alleged that the plaintiff has duly served notice under sections 70/70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act on the defendants.
4. ' The defendant No,1 has filed the written statement through its Administrator Mr. Muhammad Younus Bloch. The defendant No,1 has not denied the Membership of the plaintiff and the allotment of plot to her, as well as delivery of physical possession of the plot. It is alleged that the plaintiff is in arrears of utility charges, and therefore, notices were served for the payment of utility charges and subsequently for intimation of the cancellation of her plot. It is averred in the written statement that the Pay Order, dated 21-1-2000 of Rs,17,780 has been returned. It is further contended that instead of filing the suit, the plaintiff ought to have adopted proper channel of Arbitration under the provisions of sections 54, 56 and 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. It is further alleged that the plot in question has changed hands and has been transferred to several persons. It is pleaded that the suit is barred by law and is liable to be dismissed accordingly.
5. ' The plaintiff submitted injunction application as well, but the learned counsel for defendant submitted that before hearing the injunction application, it is necessary to decide, if this Court has jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable.
6. ' With the consent of learned Advocates for the parties arguments have been heard on the point of jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit.
7. ' Learned counsel for the defendant Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Shaikh, has submitted that it is an admitted position that the dispute under consideration is covered squarely by the provisions contained in section 54 of the Arbitration Act and consequently the jurisdiction of this Court is barred, under section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. He has contended that the very opening words of section 70-A clearly contain that no suit except as expressly provided in the Act, can be filed and its to be read with provisions to section 54. He has contended that the only conclusion which can be drawn by reading section 54 and section 70-A together is that the jurisdiction of civil Courts including high Court is barred and the matter lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of Registrar or his nominee. He has further submitted that in addition to the bar of jurisdiction under section 70-A, the suit is not maintainable because of the non-compliance of the provisions contained in section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. He has urged that no doubt the plaintiff has served a notice stating therein that it may be treated as notice under sections 70 and 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, but it is not in accordance with the requirements of law. He has maintained that under section 70, the notice is required to be addressed to the Registrar and the plaintiff has addressed the notice to the defendant No,2 who is Secretary of the Society. Mr. Shaikh has further submitted that the copy of the notice has been forwarded to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, and therefore, even if it is treated to be a notice delivered to the Registrar Cooperative Societies, as required under section 70, it does not contain the relief which is claimed by the plaintiff in the present suit. He has argued out that according to section 70, a notice addressed to the Registrar should state the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims. He has pointed out that the plaintiff has sought several declarations and permanent injunction in the plaint but the notice dated 26-1-2000 addressed to Secretary of the Society and copy forwarded to the Registrar, merely contains request to probe into the matter with a further request to issue positive direction to Saadabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi, to avoid complication and litigation and to refrain from taking any adverse action against the owner allottee as the act apparent from the face of it is arbitrary and illegal. He has further pointed out that no relief has been sought from the Registrar in the nature of declaration, sought in the plaint, in this suit. He has submitted that since notice under section 70 is mandatory, therefore, strict compliance is required to be made and non-compliance of the requirements of the section shall render the suit non-maintainable. Mr. Shaikh has argued that the purpose of section 70 is that the Registrar should be clearly appraised of the relief sought from him as required under section 54 and if the Registrar fails to take cognizance either himself or through his nominee or by referring the matter to arbitration of either of the parties so desires, then only on expiry of a period of two months the jurisdiction of civil Court can be invoked. Mr. Shaikh has contended that sections 54, 70 and 70-A should be read together in order to ascertain the intention of the legislature.
8. ' On the other hand, Mr. M. Akram Zuberi, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the sole requirement for invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court by a member or past member of the Society is to serve a notice under section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, on the Registrar which has been served, and therefore, the suit is maintainable and this Court has the jurisdiction to proceed with the suit. He has conceded that the Registrar was never requested to take a decision pertaining to the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. However, he has submitted that the notice under section 70 implies that an action be taken under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and therefore, silence on the part of Registrar, after service of notice dated 26-1-2000 created a right in favour of plaintiff to file the suit before this Court. His contention is that section 54 and section 70-A are not to be read together. Mr. Akram Zuberi has not addressed any argument as to what is the purpose and purport of section 70-A, if a member or past member of the Society has the right to file the suit in civil Court and the Court continues to hold jurisdiction to entertain the suits pertaining to the matters which fall within the purview of section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. His sole contention is that notwithstanding, the barring provision contained in section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, .1925, the Civil Courts shall continue to hold jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable after delivery of a notice to the Registrar.
9. ' In support of his contention Mr. Akram Zuberi has placed reliance on the following judgments:
(1) 1991 CLC 1917
(2) 1991 CLC 758
(3) 1991 CLC 192
(4) 1993 M LD 2464
(5) PLD 1987 Kar. 676
(6) PLD 1966 Kar. 177
(7) 1980 CLC 1721
(8) 1984 CLC 2194
(9) PLD 1981 Kar.
10. 604.
11. ' I have carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties and material available on record.
12. ' Before considering the contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the parties, on the point of jurisdiction of his Court and the maintainability of the suit, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, contained in sections 54, 70 and 70-A which read as follows:-- "54. Arbitration..--If any dispute touching the business of a Society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society or its committee against a paid servant of the Society) arises --
(a) between members or past members of the Society or persons claming through a member or past member, or
(b) between members or past members of persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the Society, or
(c) between the Society or its committee, and any past or present member of the Society, or
(d) between the Society or its committee, and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society, or a surety of such, officer, agent or servant, whether such surety is or is not a member of the Society, or
(e) between a financing bank authorized under subsection (1) of section 34 and a person who is not a member of a Society, ' it shall be referred to Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned.
13. ' A dispute shall include (the question whether a person is or was a member of a Society and also) claims by a Society for debts or demands due to it from (a member, past member or nonmember) or the heirs or assets of a past member (or nonmember) whether such debts or demands be admitted or not: ' Provided that if the question at issue between a Society and a claimant, or between different claimants, is one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the Society. If no such suit is instituted within six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as laid down in paragraph 1 of this section."
14. "70. Notice necessary in suits.---No suit shall be instituted against a Society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the Society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, or left at his officer, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.
15. 70-A(1) Notwithstanding anything provided in any other law for the time being in force, but save as expressly provided in this Act --
(a) no Court or other authority whatsoever shall have jurisdiction to entertain, or to adjudicate upon, any matter which the Provincial Government, the Registrar or his nominee, any arbitrator or liquidator, a society, a financing bank, a Cooperative Bank or any other person as empowered by or under this Act, or the rules or bye-laws framed thereunder, to dispose of or to determine;
(b) the validity of anything done or an order passed by the Provincial Government, a financing bank, a Cooperative Bank the Registrar or any other person referred to in clause (a) under this Act or the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder, shall not be called in question in any manner whatever before or by any Court or other authority whatsoever; and
(c) no Court or other authority whatsoever shall be competent to grant any injunction or pass any other order in relation to any proceedings under this Act or any rules or bye-laws framed thereunder before the Provincial Government, a Society, a financing bank, a Cooperative Bank, the Registrar or any other person referred to in clause (a).
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) shall be applicable to proceedings appeals and revisions pending adjudication or disposal before or in any Court or other authority whatsoever on the date that the Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Ordinance, 1956, comes into force, and any order, passed in such proceedings, whether before or after the coming into force of the said Ordinance, in regard to matters referred to in subsection (1), shall stand vacated and be without any force."
16. ' The contention of Mr. Akram Zuberi, that sections 54, 70 and 70-A are to be read separately and independently and that the sections should not be read together, does not appear to be in consonance with the principle of interpretation and statutes. On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Shaikh, learned counsel for the defendant that all the three sections are to be read together in order to ascertain the intention of legislature appears to be in accordance with the recognized principle of interpretation of statutes and the methodology for ascertaining the intention of legislature. It is established principle of the interpretation of statutes, that no word or expression or any part of a section is to be read in isolation. The entire section is to be read in totality and likewise in order to ascertain the intention of legislature, the entire statute is to be read together and 'all the relevant provisions in a statute are to be read together and the conclusions are to be drawn which emerge out of the totality of a scheme contained in the Statute, in a manner which is harmonious with all the relevant provisions contained in an enactment. It is very rare that a particular section is a complete code in itself in any statute. The general rule is that all the relevant provisions in the Statute are to be considered in their totality in a way that the scheme envisaged in the law is applied in its totality without doing violence to any other provision of law and without rendering any other section in the statute to be redundant, superfluous, nugatory or otiose.
17. ' Keeping the above principle in view, now I proceed to examine the effect of provisions contained in sections 54, 70 and 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. A perusal of section 54 shows that if any dispute arises, touching the business of a Society between persons enumerated in section 54 it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration. It is clarified in the section itself that the dispute shall include claim by a Society for debts or demands due to it from a , member, past member or non-member or the heirs of assets of a past member or non-member whether such debits or demands be admitted or not. Proviso to section 54 contains that if the question at issue between a Society and a claimant or between claimants is one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the Society. It is further provided that if no such suit is instituted within six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings the Registrar shall take action as laid down in paragraph 1 of section 54.
18. ' Now coming to sections 70 and 70-A, it is evident that under section 70, no suit shall be instituted against a Society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the Society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, or left at his office, stating the cause of action, the name, description and place of residence of the plaintiff and the relief which he claims: and thereafter when the suit is filed the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. Section 70 is a part of statute since its very inception but subsequently the legislature has further deemed it necessary to restrict the jurisdiction of Civil Court and to strengthen the scheme, contained in section 54 pertaining to the reference of dispute touching the business of a Society as envisaged under section 54 to the Registrar, his nominee or arbitrators. Section 70-A starts with non-obstinate clause, which always has the effect of overriding the provisions contained in the statute or in any other law as the case may be. The legislature by inserting the nonobstante clause in section 70-A has further provided that no Court or other authority whatsoever shall have jurisdiction to entertain, or to adjudicate upon any matter which the Provincial Government, the Registrar or his nominee, any arbitrator or liquidator, a Society, a financing bank, a Cooperative Bank or any other person is empowered by or under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 or the rules or bye-laws framed thereunder to dispose of or to determine save as expressly provided in the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. (Emphasis laid by me). It means that the suit envisaged under section 70 shall be filed in accordance with the provisions expressly provided in the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and not otherwise if the subject-matter of the suit is within the jurisdiction of the authorities mentioned in clause (a) of section 70-A (1). The intention of the legislature to oust the jurisdiction of Civil Court from entertaining any suit or making any order is crystallized from the provisions contained in subsection (2) of section 70-A which provides that the provisions of subsection (1) shall apply to such matters as well which stand disposed of by the Court of original jurisdiction and are pending in appeals and revision and that orders made in regard to the matters referred to in 'subsection (1) of section 70-A, shall stand vacated and be without any force.
19. ' Now coming to the authorities produced by Mr. Akram Zuberi, learned counsel for the plaintiff, I find that none of the judgments is relevant to the issue pertaining to jurisdiction of the Court. The reason being that all the authorities on which Mr. Akram Zuberi has placed reliance deal with the provisions contained in sections 54 and 70 only and not with the provisions contained in section 70-A, which bars the jurisdiction of the Courts for entertaining any suit otherwise than in accordance with provisions expressly contained in the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. However, I have been able to lay hand on few judgments in which the effect of section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act has been considered. In the case of Pir Illahi Bux Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. K.B. Sanaullah PLD 1968 Kar. 680, a Division Bench of this Court comprising their Lordships Qadeeruddin Ahmed and Dorab Patel, JJ., the provisions contained in sections 50-A, 54- A and section 117 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 came for consideration alongwith section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. It was a revision application and it was observed that their Lordships would have accepted the revision applications but because of amendment introduced by enactment of section 70-A, jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred. The revision pertained to the proceedings pending before Registrar and it was held that in view of section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, jurisdiction of Civil Courts has become barred in respect of suit proceedings. At this stage, I, would like to clarify that in the cited judgment clause (c) of subsection
(1) of section 70-A, was attracted wherein it is provided that no Court or other authority whatsoever shall be competent to grant any injunction or pass any other order in relation to any proceedings under the Cooperative Societies Act. Similar bar is contained in section (a) of subsection (1) of section 70-A in respect of jurisdiction to entertain, or to adjudicate upon, any matter which the Provincial Government, the Registrar or his nominee etc. Are empowered to dispose of or to determine and to the issue under consideration, the provisions contained in section 70-A(1)(a)is attracted.
20. ' The provisions contained in sections 70 and 70-A, came for consideration before a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Farida v. Prince Apartments Cooperative Housing Societies, 1984 CLC 2914.
21. It was held that "the provisions of section 70-A provided further protection to a society registered under the Act for being sued in a Court of law in respect of a matter determinable by Provincial Government or its functionary mentioned therein." It was further observed that "had the matter fallen within provisions of section 54, plaintiff could not have maintained a suit in view of the bar contained in section 70-A of the Act "
22. ' The issue again came for consideration before a Single Bench of , this Court in the case of Muhammad Azim v. Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi PLD 1985 Kar.
481. It was observed as follows:-- "The dispute in the present case is not referable to the Registrar under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act nor is Muhammad Azim or United Bank a Member of the Society. A plain reading of section 70-A of the Act clearly indicates that jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred only in such cases which have to be decided by the statutory functionaries under the Act by virtue of the provisions of the Act or the Rules or Bye-Laws framed thereunder. If the dispute could not be referred under section 54 of the Act to arbitration, section 70-A does not bar the jurisdiction of Civil Court."
23. ' At this juncture, I, would like to point out that Mr. Akram Zuberi, learned counsel for the plaintiff has not denied that the dispute which is the subject-matter of this suit is a dispute touching the business of the Society as envisaged under section 54 and 'that the dispute is within the competence of Registrar or his nominee.
24. ' The provisions contained in section 70-A came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Lyallpur Motor Company v. Standard Cooperative Bank Ltd. 1974 SCMR 226. It was held in the cited case that the Liquidator was performing an act or function which he was empowered to do by or' under the Act, and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil Court. To entertain suit against the said Act was barred under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 70-A.
25. The above judgments leave no room for any doubt about the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Court under section 70-A in respect of the matters specified in clauses (a)(b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 70-A. Thus I, have no scintilla of doubt in my mind that the dispute forming subject-matter of this suit being admittedly within the competence and jurisdiction of the Registrar or his nominee or the Arbitrator under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred. Consequently the suit is liable to be dismissed.
26. ' However, another question arises that if the jurisdiction of Court is totally barred, whether the provisions contained in section 70 shall become redundant, nugatory and otiose. My answer is in negative. As already observed while discussing the principles of interpretation of statutes, all the provisions in an enactment are to be considered in its totality so as to .Discern the intention of the legislature, without making any provision in the enactment as nugatory or redundant. Thus, when all the three sections 54, 70 and 70-A are read together, the scheme of the legislation which emerges, is as follows:--
(a) By virtue of the provisions contained in section 70-A, the jurisdiction of Court is absolutely barred in respect of the matters mentioned in clauses (a)(b) and (c) of subsection (1) of section 70-A read with the provisions contained in section 54.
(b) Notwithstanding, the bar contained in section 70-A, the suit can be filed under the provisions expressly provided in the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
(c) One of the provisions expressly provided in the Act pertaining to the filing of suit by any party is contained in proviso to section 54. It envisages that any dispute touching the business of Society shall be referred first to the Registrar and then if the Registrar is of the view that there is any question or issue involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may if he thinks fit suspend the proceedings in the matter, untill the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the Society. Thus, if any suit is filed under this provision neither any notice under section 70, shall be required to be served on the Registrar nor the jurisdiction of the Court shall be barred.
(d) The second express provision in the Act, is contained in section 70. Section 54 and section 70 are to be read together. As already observed, any dispute touching the business of a Society is to be referred to the Arbitration envisaged under section 54. However, the legislature has not left an aggrieved person completely at the mercy of Registrar, by enacting the provisions contained in section 70. Section 70 is couched in negative language which prima facie excludes the filing of suit against the Society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the business of the Society and it is inconsonance with the provisions contained in section 54 and section 70-A. But, thereafter an exception is provided which is to the effect that if after expiry of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar stating therein specifically the relief which a person claims and the Registrar does not initiate any arbitration proceedings then such inaction on the part of Registrar shall confer a right on an aggrieved person to file a suit in the Court and the bar on the jurisdiction of the Court shall be lifted. Here it will be seen that when sections 54, 70 and 70-A are read together the wisdom of the legislature crystalises and we find that the intention of the legislature that the matter pertaining to the disputes touching the business of society should normally and initially be referred to the Registrar and once the matter is referred and the Registrar initiates proceedings the jurisdiction of Courts is barred. However, if the Registrar fails, neglects or avoids to initiate proceedings, an aggrieved person shall serve a notice under section 70 and if Registrar initiates proceedings within a period of two months, the jurisdiction of the Court shall be barred and an aggrieved person shall have no right to institute a suit in the Court. Suit instituted if any shall be barred under section 70-A. Likewise if no notice under section 70 is delivered to the Registrar specifically stating the relief sought, the suit shall not be maintainable.
27. ' Now again reverting to the facts of the present case I, find that Mr. Akram Zuberi, has conceded during the course of arguments that the plaintiff has not specifically referred the dispute pertaining to the impugned demand and its effect, to the Registrar under section 54 and further in the notice dated 26-1-2000, the relief claimed in the suit has not been stated and the Registrar has been merely requested to issue direction to the Society to avoid complications and litigations and to refrain from taking any adverse action against the plaintiff. The notice is not in consonance with the requirement of section 70, and therefore, in addition to the fact that the jurisdiction of the Court is barred, the suit is not maintainable.
28. ' Consequent to the above findings it is held that the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under section 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act and the suit is not maintainable under section 70 of the said Act. The suit stands dismissed accordingly, alongwith the listed application, with no order as to costs.