| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3004 = 1981 SLD 3004 = 1981 SCMR 322 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. C-18 of 1980, decided on 3rd February,1981.(On. appeal from order dated 9-7-1980 of the Baluchistan High Court in Civil Revision No. 17 of 1980).
Presented By: Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Shamsuddin Khan v. Shantsuddln 1970 D L C 684 ref. Petitioner in person. Nemo for
Respondents.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. C-18 of 1980, decided on 3rd February,1981.(On. appeal from order dated 9-7-1980 of the Baluchistan High Court in Civil Revision No. 17 of 1980).
Presented By: Dorab Patel, Muhammad Haleem and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ
Shamsuddin Khan v. Shantsuddln 1970 D L C 684 ref. Petitioner in person. Nemo for
Respondents.
QAMAR RAZA SIDDIQI-Petitioner
VERSUS
GHAYAS-UD-DIN KHAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925
Section: 20, 50-A, 70, 70-A
Cooperative Societies Act (VII of 1925) Ss. 20, 50-A, 70 & 70-A-Petitioner not giving proper particulars in his plaint of frauds alleged by him-Petitioner being Secretary of a Co operative Society and his dispute with respondents coming out of busi ness of co-operative society, his claim, held, bit by S. 24, Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 read with S. 20-A of such Act-No winding proceedings having been instituted, petitioner's suit, held further, cannot be said to have not been hit by S. 50-A of Act-Section 70 of Act being a provision to cover suits by persons not members of a Co-operative Society and whose claim not covered under S. 54 of Act. held still further, also of no avail to petitioner. Date of hearing : 3rd February, 1981. ORDER DORAB PATEL, J.-According to the suit filed by the petitioner, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Quetta, had passed a decree against him for Rs. 94,808.14. But according to the petitioner the claim against him was a false and fraudulent claim, therefore, he filed a suit in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Quetta, against the respondents, for a permanent injunction to restrain them from recovering the decretal amount from him. Together with the suit he sought an interim injunction. But as his application was dismissed, he filed an appeal in the District Court, Quetta, which was also dismissed. He then filed a revision in the High Court, Baluchistan, and this revision %as dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that the plaint of the petitioner did not contain any particular of the fraud alleged by him. Hence this petition for leave. The petitioner, who has argued in person, has not given proper particulars in his plaint of the fraud alleged by him, as rightly…