Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through COLLECTOR FAISALABAD And Others VS Respondent: Mirza BASHIR AHMAD And 2 Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Aslam Riaz Hussain, Saad Saood Jan Title:PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Through COLLECTOR FAISALABAD And Others vs Mirza
BASHIR AHMAD And 2 Other Case No.: Civil Petitions Nos.42, 45 and 49 of 1987 Civil Revisions Nos.20137/D, 2088/1 Date of Judgment:1987-05-04 Reported As: 1987 SCMR 1391 Result: Petitions dismissed Judgment ORDER SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--In these petitions the objections filed by the petitioners to arbitration award were rejected on the ground of limitation. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are satisfied that the objections were not preferred by the petitioners within the stat story period and as such no fault can be found with the decision of the trial Court in this regard. 2. The awards, were filed in the Court on 7-5-1981. On 11-5-1981 the Arbitration' (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 came into force. Section 3(1) of the Ordinance stated: "If in any case in which proceedings in relation to an award which has been filed in Court are pending in any Court immediately ,Before the commencement of this Ordinance, the Court finds that the award does not, or does not in sufficient detail,) states the reasons for the award, the Court may remit the award to the arbitrators or umpire with a direction to state the reasons for the award in sufficient detail." The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that in these cases the arbitrator had not given reasons in support of his awards and, therefore, the Court ought not to have made them rule of the Court but should have remitted them to the arbitrator in accordance with section 3(1) ibid. We find no merit in this contention for the reason that no such prayer was made before the trial Court or the Additional District Judge on behalf of the petitioners. These are, therefore, not fit cases where leave should be granted to the petitioners. The petition are accordingly dismissed.