DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.

( 1 ) HEARD parties counsel and perused record.

( 2 ) SOLITARY argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Registrar firms, Society and Chits Lucknow, lacks jurisdiction while passing the impugned order contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

( 3 ) SRI Manish Kumar learned counsel for the respondent submits that while passing the impugned order, the Registrar has observed that the petitioner committed fraud and interpolated the record. Accordingly, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order.

( 4 ) A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner was heard by the registrar Firms, Society and Chits Lucknow, while adjudicating the controversy. However, in case, the Registrar Firms, Society and Chits Lucknow was having no jurisdiction, he could not have recorded finding with regard to controversy even if the fraud was committed. The question of fraud is like any other evidence to be proved.

( 5 ) THE petitioner relied upon the judgment in Fahim Ahmad and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2006 (24) LCD 1078 passed by this Court (by me) and affirmed in a Special Appeal No. 462 of 2008 by the judgment of a Divisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document