Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 CLC 181
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Year of Decision: 2024
Decision Date: 2024-08-07
Parties: Saeeda Jillani and others vs Malik Sheraz Zafar and another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court on 2024-08-07, officially reported as 2025 CLC 181. In this matter between Saeeda Jillani and others and Malik Sheraz Zafar and another, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025 CLC 181
Court Name: Islamabad High Court Judge(s): Arbab Muhammad Tahir Title: Saeeda Jillani and others vs Malik Sheraz Zafar and another Case No.: F.A.O No. 167 and Civil Revision No. 334 of 2019 Date of Judgment:2024-08-07 Reported As: 2025 CLC 181 Result: Appeal/Revision dismissed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. This single judgment shall dispose of the captioned Civil Revision Petition as well as the Appeal since the question of law involved in both the said cases is exactly the same and since the said cases are between the same parties and so also arise from one and the same judgment of the learned Court below. 2. Impugned in Civil Revision Petition No.334 of 2019 is the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2019 rendered by learned Senior Civil Judge-II, East-Islamabad, whereby the application filed by Malik Sheraz Zafar (respondent No.1 in both the cases) (to be referred to as "respondent No.1/Second Purchaser") under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (to be referred to as "the Act") was allowed, the Arbitration Award dated 10.06.2010 was made a rule of Court and a decree in terms thereof was passed. Furthermore, through the same very judgment and decree, the learned Senior Civil Judge had turned down the objections filed under Section 30 of the Act by Sheikh Muhammad Zulfiqar (petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition) (to be referred to as "petitioner/First Purchaser") praying inter alia for setting aside of the said Award. 3. Whereas through F.A.O. No.167 of 2019, the appellants, Saeeda Jillani and Bilqees Begum (collectively to be referred to as "the allottees") and Zafar Iqbal Rahat have questioned the validity of the very same judgment and decree dated 31.05.2019, whereby their objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act praying inter cilia for setting aside of the said Award dated 10.06.2010, were also dismissed. FACTS OF CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.334 OF 2019 AS WELL AS F.A.O. NO.167/2019.
---
## Page 2
4. In analyzing both the castes, it becomes apparent that their facts are intertwined, necessitating a comprehensive examination of each scenario concurrently. By juxtaposing the details of the Civil Revision Petition with those of the Appeal, a clearer understanding emerges of the interconnected nature of the events. Consequently, this discussion will proceed by delineating the relevant facts of each case in parallel, thereby facilitating a holistic evaluation of the overarching narrative. 5. The allottees and their sister namely Mrs. Jamila Begum (late) [predecessor in interest of appellant No.3 in F.A.O. No.167 of 2019] owned land measuring around 129 kanals and 10 marlas situated in Mauza Kartal, Pakhral Chak Amdad Dhoke Sharaf, Tehsil and District Islamabad (to be referred to as "suit land"). The said land was acquired by Capital Development Authority (to be referred to as "CDA") in the year 1969 and as per the terms of the CDA's Rehabilitation Policy, the allottees were held entitled to an Agro Farm in Islamabad in lieu of the suit land. 6. Mst. Jamila Begum passed away on 05.05.1999, whereafter on 28.05.1999, an application was moved by appellant No.3 (Zafar Iqbal Rahat) on behalf of the remaining two allotees to the CDA for allotment of an Agro Plot. According to CDA Board's decision dated 18.10.1999, the allottees were declared to be entitled for the allotment of an Agro Plot. Hence, vide letter No.CDA/E&M-II/PVC- 40/80/99/08 dated 06.01.2000, an offer for allotment of Agro Plot No.80 comprising of 2.79 acres situated in Orchard Permanent Nursery Scheme, Murree Road, Islamabad (to be referred to as "suit plot") was issued in favour of the allottees against payment of premium at the rate of 200/- per acre per annum. Furthermore, the allottees were called upon to deposit 25% of the total premium by 05.02.2000. It is asserted that appellant No.3, being the real son of Mst. Jamila Begum, sworn an affidavit to the effect that late Mst. Jamila Begum had no objection on the allotment of a plot in favour of the allottees. 7. Mst. Bilqees Begum [appellant No.2 in the appeal] along with late Mrs. Jamila Begum executed registered General Power of Attorney on 15.01.1995, whereas Saeeda Mani [appellant No.1 in the appeal] executed such an Attorney on 18.01.1995, (to be collectively referred to as "GPAs"), in favour of Zafar Iqbal Rahat [appellant No.3 in the appeal] (to be referred to as "Attorney") with respect to the entire rights of the suit land acquired by CDA. FIRST AGREEMENT TO SELL: 8. In exercise of the authority vested in him through above-mentioned registered GPAs, the Attorney sold the rights of suit plot expected to be allotted to the donors of the GPAs to the petitioner/First Purchaser vide sale agreement dated 26.05.1999 for a total sale consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs only). An amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner/First Purchaser to the Attorney through cheque bearing No.10755325 dated 26.05.1999 drawn on Muslim Commercial Bank, Aabpara Branch, Islamabad whereas the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 15,50,000/- was agreed to be paid to the latter at the time of the transfer of plot in the name of the former and/or his nominee. 9. Since the allottees were not interested in Agro Plot No.80, they filed Writ Petition No.215 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench titled as "Mst. Bilqees Begum v. CDA" praying inter alia for a direction to the CDA to allot any other available, proper and plain plot in exchange of Plot No.80. The said writ petition stood dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2005 with observation to approach the Court of plenary jurisdiction. Subsequently, on 20.08.2005, the allottees instituted a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction praying inter alia for a declaration to the effect that a decree be passed declaring them to be entitled for allotment of an alternative developed plot of equal size and value as the one already allotted viz Plot No.80 on Murree Road, Islamabad. During pendency of the said suit, CDA offered the allottees an alternate plot bearing No.19 measuring 2.50 acres, Murree Road Islamabad vide offer letter dated 21.01.2010 against premium at the rate of 18,00,000/- per acre in addition to the Annual Ground Rent at the rate of Rs.4500/- per acre per annum. Upon withdrawal of said suit as well as on payment of
---
## Page 3
25% on account of the premium, the CDA issued another allotment letter in respect of Plot No.19 on 23.01.2010. Later on 26.01.2010, the allottees instituted yet another suit on exactly the same grounds on the basis of mere apprehension qua cancellation of the newly allotted plot i.e. Plot No.19. It ought to be mentioned that both the civil suits were instituted by the allottees through respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser as their "Special Attorney". SECOND AGREEMENT TO SELL:- 10. As mentioned above, the petitioner/First Purchaser having purchased the suit plot through agreement to sell dated 26.05.1999 from Attorney, further sold it to respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser through agreement dated 30.07.2003 for a total sale consideration of Rs.85,00,000/-. As per the terms of the said agreement dated 30.07.2003, respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser was obligated to pay Rs.23,00,000/- and/or any increase/decrease to the CDA. Furthermore, "respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser paid 50% of the balance amount i.e. 31.00,000/- to the petitioner/First Purchaser in the following manner:- i. Rs.30,00,000/- paid through Pay Order No.0317486 dated 30.07.2003 drawn on Allied Bank Limited, G-8 Markaz Branch, Islamabad. ii. Rs. 1,00,000/ - in cash. 11. Whereas the remaining 50% i.e. 31,00,000/- was to be paid to the petitioner/First Purchaser within a period of three months from the date of signing/execution of said agreement dated 30.07.2003. Under the terms of the said agreement, the petitioner/First Purchaser was bound to get an agreement to the extent of 50% ownership of the plot executed between the allottees and respondent No.1/Second Purchaser. It was also agreed upon that in case of failure, the petitioner/First Purchaser was also to return Rs.31,00,000/- to respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser within 15 days. 12. Three days after the execution of agreement dated 30.07.2003 (i.e. the agreement between the petitioner/First Purchaser and respondent No.1/Second Purchaser), the allottees entered into an agreement to sell dated 02.08.2003, as "First Party" with the petitioner/First Purchaser and respondent No.1/Second Purchaser as "Second Party". The allottees sold their rights again with respect to the suit plot/alternate plot to the Second Party at a profit of Rs.16,00.000/-. On the same day i.e. 02.08.2003, the allottees also executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner/First Purchaser and respondent No.1/Second Purchaser. ARBITRATION. 13. After the execution of the aforementioned agreement, the disputes between the petitioner/First Purchaser and respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser developed. As such the petitioner/First Purchaser appointed one Haji Muhammad Saleem as Arbitrator on his behalf whereas respondent No.1/Second Purchaser appointed Muhammad Ashraf as Arbitrator on his behalf. Both the nominated Arbitrators could not arrive at a conclusive decision in relation to the referred disputes, as such the matter was referred to the Umpire/Referee, namely Qazi Rafi ud Din Babar, Advocate through Iqrar Nama dated 11.02.2010. It may be apposite to mention here that both the parties had given their consent that the decision of the Umpire would be acceptable to both the parties. AWARD. 14. The Umpire after entering upon the reference, framed the issues, recorded the evidence of both parties and after fulfilling the required formalities, rendered his Award on 10.06.2010. Apparently, after announcement of the said Award, the Umpire through letter dated 10.06.2010 had informed the, parties as to the pronouncement of the award. The said Award was made rule of Court vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2019, hence the captioned Civil Revision Petition as well as the Appeal. 15. Mr. Muhammad Wajid Hussain Mughal, representing the appellants/allottees in the appeal contends that the allottees are the exclusive owners of the suit property. That respondent No.
---
## Page 4
1/Second Purchaser in collusion with land grabbers, started construction on the suit plot belonging to the allottees. That on 26.05.1999, an agreement to sell was executed between appellants Nos.1 and 2/allottees and petitioner/First Purchaser according to which, then he was obliged to clear the entire dues of the CDA in relation to the suit plot and also to make efforts for the allotment of Agro Plot against the claim of the allottees predecessor in interest. That since the petitioner/First Purchaser did not make any effort either for the allotment of the Agro Plot nor paid any dues pursuant to the terms of the said agreement, hence, the said agreement was revoked. That since the allottees had revoked the agreement to sell dated 26.05.1999, therefore, the petitioner/First Purchaser had no right to enter into any further sale agreement with any third party with respect to the suit plot. That the petitioner/First Purchaser and respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser in league with each other, fraudulently entered into sale agreement dated 30.07.2003 with respect to the suit plot, which was the exclusive ownership of the alltottees. That the said agreement was neither signed by the allottees nor their Attorney i.e. appellant No.3. That after the disputes arose between petitioner/First Purchaser and respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser regarding the alleged sale agreement dated 30.07.2003, the matter was referred to the so-called Umpire/Arbitrator, namely Qazi Rafi ud Din Babar, advocate. That the allottees were neither parties to the said sale agreement dated 30.07.2003 nor to the arbitration proceedings hence, they had no concern with the so-called arbitration proceedings. That instead of filing an application under Section 14 of the Act, respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser filed an application under Section 17 of the Act, wherein the allottees were impleaded as parties. That appellants filed their objections under Section 30 of the Act praying for setting aside of Award dated 10.06.2010. That the learned trial Court did not consider the appellants objections to the said Award. 16. He further emphasized that learned trial Court erred in law by not appreciating that neither the Award was filed by the Umpire nor any authority was conferred upon respondent No.1/Second Purchaser to file the same in the Court. That since the original, Award was not filed in the Court by the Umpire hence, the same could not have been made rule of the Court. That the objections of the appellants were turned down on mere technicality. That the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2019 is not sustainable in the eye of law. And that impugned judgment is the result of non-reading and mis-reading of the material available on record, concluded learned counsel for the appellants. In order to supplement his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments reported as 2010 YLR 1448, 2004 YLR 1882, 1999 CLC 1685, 2007 YLR 1608, 2003 YLR 1109, PLD 2017 Islamabad 1, 2008 CLC 1476, 2010 YLR 164, PLD 1990 Lahore 25, 1994 SCMR 603, 2010 YLR 1448 and PLD 1953 Sindh 18. 17. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed, representing the petitioner/First Purchaser, has argued that learned trial Court while ignoring patent illegality in respondent No.1/Second Purchaser's application filed under Section 17 of the Act, accepted the same. That one of the patent illegalities which was floating on the surface of record was that the original allottees were not arrayed as necessary parties in the arbitration proceedings. That the said parties were subsequently impleaded by respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser in his application under Section 17 of the Act. That since the allottees were the exclusive owners of suit plot, thus they were the necessary parties to be impleaded in the arbitration proceedings. That the application filed by respondent No.1/Second Purchaser under Section 17 of the Act ought to have been rejected on the sole ground that original allottees were not parties in the arbitration proceedings. That on this score alone; the application filed by respondent No.1/Second Purchaser under Section 17 merited dismissal. That the non-impleadment of the said allottees in the arbitration proceeding rendered the very Award invalid and of no legal consequences. That the conclusion drawn by the Umpire/Referee that the sale agreement dated 30.07.2003 was executable is without any substance. That the Umpire/Referee also erred by not examining the effect of the subsequent agreement dated 02.08.2003. That the learned trial Court did not appreciate that the award rendered by the Umpire/Referee did not decide the disputes
---
## Page 5
between the contesting parties. That the impugned judgment was passed without appreciating the material available on the record as well as the law on the subject. That the Court is bound to examine the validity and legality of an arbitration award before making the same as a rule of Court. That since the Award was not filed in the Court by Umpire rather by respondent No.1/Second Purchaser on his own, therefore, the same was not enforceable, concluded learned counsel for the petitioner. During the course of his contentions, he placed reliance on the judgments reported as PLD 2016 SC 121, 2009 SCMR 29, 2014 SCMR 1268, 2018 SCMR 662, 2010 CLC 1014, 2010 YLR 1448, 2017 YLR 301, AIR 1963 AP 8, PLD 2016 SC 872, PLD 2003 Lahore 522 and PLD 1986 Quetta 321. 18. Whereas, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser in both the cases, has vehemently controverted the contentions of learned counsel for appellants and petitioner/First Purchaser by contending that on the basis of the Power of Attorney, the petitioner/First Purchaser executed sale agreement dated 30.07.2003 with respondent No.1/Second Purchaser and thereby sold the suit plot to him. That said petitioner also got managed the execution of sale agreement dated 02.08.2003 between the allottees and respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser. That respondent No.1/Second Purchaser was informed that the plot in question is free from all encumbrances. That respondent No.1/Second Purchaser asked the petitioner/First Purchaser to fulfill his contractual obligations under the sale agreement executed between the parties. That it was mutually decided by the parties to get the issues resolved through arbitration. That it was with consent of petitioner/First Purchaser that the matter was referred to the two Arbitral Tribunals appointed by each party and thereafter was referred to the Umpire/Referee. That the reference of dispute to arbitration was not objected to either by the allottees or by the petitioner/First Purchaser. That the Arbitrators appointed by each party as well as the petitioner/First Purchaser sworn affidavits to the effect that the decision to be rendered by the Umpire/Referee shall be binding upon the parties. 19. He further argued that all the codal formalities were fulfilled by the Arbitrators/Umpire. That had the Award rendered by the Umpire been to the likings of petitioner/First Purchaser, he could not have objected the same. That after the pronouncement of the Award, the petitioner/First Purchaser was required to implement the same, which was strictly in accordance with the law governing the subject. That neither the allottees nor the petitioner/First Purchaser challenged the Award dated 10.06.2010, which fact implies that the same was compliant in all respect. And that had the decree was not passed in terms of the said Award, the rights of respondent No.1/ Second Purchaser would have been jeopardized. And that the impugned judgment and decree is strictly in accordance with law and thus not open to any interference by this Court, concluded learned counsel for respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser in both the cases. 20. Arguments heard. Record perused. The facts which led to the filing of the captioned Civil Revision Petition as well as Appeal have been substantially discussed in preceding paragraphs and thus need no replication. 21. This Court, in the first instance, deems it appropriate, to address the objections raised and emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner/First Purchaser as well as learned counsel for the allottees to the effect that neither the Award dated 10-6-2010 2010 was filed by the Arbitrator/Umpire nor any authority expressed or implied was vested in respondent No.1/Second Purchaser to file the same in the Court on his own. 22. In order to address the first question, several factors need to be considered. This court is of the view that a person or a party must have a legitimate interest in the enforcement of an arbitration award. Typically, either, party to the arbitration (the claimant' or the respondent) has the equal right to seek the enforcement of an arbitral award, subject to law. Under the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (which has been adopted by many countries), any party
---
## Page 6
to the arbitration proceedings may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the enforcement of an arbitration award, provided the applicable legal and procedural requirements are met. 23. Before rendering an opinion on the said questions, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 14(2) of the Act, which is the only provision prescribed for filing an award in the court of competent jurisdiction. The said section reads thus:- "14. Award to be signed and filed.-(1) When the arbitrators or unwire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. (2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been, taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. 24. In the case titled CDA and another v. Messrs Habib Raft (Pvt.) Ltd and others (2021 SCMR 1137), it was inter alia held by the august Supreme Court that:- "There is no specific provision in the Arbitration Act, 1940 imposing a duty or prohibition upon the Arbitrator to file the Award in Court on his own. Arbitrator is mandated to file the Award in the court of plenary jurisdiction at the request of any party to the Arbitration or on the direction of the Court or caused the award to be filed in Court. .... ... once the Award is signed and made, and the parties are notified of the same, it is up to the parties or any person claiming under them to request the Arbitrator to file the Award in Court to be made rule of the court and pronounce judgment followed by a decree thereon. ..." (Emphasis is supplied) 25. The august Supreme Court in the case titled Inayat Ullah Khan v. Obaidullah Khan and others (1999 SCMR 2702) held as under:- "The arbitrators by themselves were not competent to file the award in Court as such filing of an award was not envisaged under section 14 of the Act because the arbitrators had neither been requested by any party to the arbitration agreement to file the award in Court nor had been so directed by the Court." (Emphasis is supplied) 26. Under Section 14 (1) ibid, it is clearly mentioned that when the arbitrators or the umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof, under subsection (2) of the said provision, it is further provided that the arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any deposition and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. 27. In the lis at hand, the Umpire had rendered the Award on 10.06.2010 and a copy thereof was procured by respondent No. 1/Second Purchaser, who filed the same in the civil Court on 08.09.2010 with the request to recognize and enforce the same by passing a judgment and decree in terms thereof. There is no provision in the Act, which obligates the Arbitrator and/or the Umpire to necessarily file the award in the court of plenary jurisdiction. Furthermore, there is also no provision in the said Act, which precludes an Arbitrator and/or an Umpire to file the Award in the court suo motu. It is my view that when the arbitration proceedings culminate in an Award, such an Award cannot, by itself be enforced unless the same is filed in the Court by the Arbitrator/Umpire in terms
---
## Page 7
of Section 14(2) ibid, and if the Arbitrator or the Umpire, after pronouncement of the Award, is reluctant to file the same in the Court only then it is the party to the arbitration proceedings, who can file the same in the Court in order to get it enforced. 28. From the scheme of Section 14 of the Act, it can be deduced that said Section does not in any manner obligate the Arbitrator/Umpire to provide the parties with signed copies of the award. But it also does not bar the Arbitrator/Umpire from providing signed copies of the award. When a signed copy of the award is provided to the party (as in the present case), the Arbitrator passes his authority of filing the Award in Court onto the party, which has been given a copy of the Award. 29. It goes without saying that an award gives the beneficiary the right to file an application under Section 17 of the Act so that the same is recognized and enforced by way of passing a decree in terms thereof. A careful perusal of Section 14(2) shows that in cases where the arbitrator is not willing to provide copies of the award to the parties concerned only then a party to the arbitration proceeding can file an application under Section 14(2) of the Act praying for direction by the Court to the arbitrator to file the award in the Court. 30. In the case titled "Puppalla Ramulu v. Nagidi Apalaswami (AIR 1957 Andhra Paradesh 11), it was inter alia held that Section 14(2) of the Act comes into play only when the assistance of the Court is sought in order to get the Award filed in the Court by calling upon…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.