Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GULRAIZ AHMAD ROHANI VS Respondent: M. IQBAL ANJUM
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq Title: GULRAIZ AHMAD ROHANI vs M. IQBAL ANJUM Case No.: F.A.O. No.22 of 2006 Date of Judgment:2006-03-16 Reported As: 2006 YLR 1298 Result: Appeal dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---The appellant feels aggrieved of order dated 2-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby he refused to record a compromise according to the application filed by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court could not have refused to record the compromise with the simple reason that the opposite party has denied the same. 3. I have examined the certified copies of the document appended with this F.A.O., with the assistance of the learned counsel. The suit wherein the application was filed is for recovery of money under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. Filed by the respondents against the appellant. Now in the application filed by the respondents it was stated that the matter was referred to Kamran Anjum and Sarbuland Khan, who have recorded a decision and according to that decision some amount has also been paid to the respondents and that case be decided according to the decision dated 17-9-2005. 4. Now a copy of this decision is annex-A. I have examined the same. Now it is in fact an award. It refers to the arbitration agreement dated 10-9-2005. Thereafter the reference has been explained and then is the decision. Now award provides that in case any of the parties resiled from the terms of the same, the other party shall have right to file proceedings in a Court for making an award rule of Court and the arbitrators will file the award in Court and give statement in Court accordingly. 5. Learned counsel admits that the arbitration proceedings were resorted to without interference of the Court. This being so there is no question of any compromise this is an award and though it is so written therein, even otherwise the procedure prescribed in the Arbitration Act, 1940, has to be followed and not, Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. The F.A.O. Is dismissed in limine.