Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JAHANA VS Respondent: ALLAH YARHonorable Justice Maulvi Anwarul HaqCh. Mumtaz Ahmad Bhalwana,Malik Allah Yar
2002 Y L R 3103
2002 Y L R 3103
[Lahore]
Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J
JAHANA and another‑‑‑Petitioners
Versus
ALLAH YAR and another‑‑‑Respondents
Civil Revision No.3598/D of 1994, heard on 21st February, 2002.
(a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.8 & 17‑‑‑Award‑‑‑Referee had stated that his conclusion was based on "ﻥﻳﺑﻥﺎﻬﭼ" and "ﻖﻴﻗﺤﺘ"‑‑‑Even if his said statement was not based on personal knowledge, the statement could not be said to be at par with an award in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Faiz‑ul‑Haq and another v. Abdus Salam and 3 others 1990 MLD 106 ref.
(b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss.8 & 17‑‑‑Rule of Court‑‑‑Resiling of parties from their commitments‑‑ Appointment of referee by Court on statements of parties‑‑‑Referee made statement before Court that he had made enquiries and that award be not made rule of Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Court having agreed to adopt the suggested mode of decision of application and having committed themselves, the parties could not be allowed to resile from their commitments‑‑ Application for making award rule of Court was dismissed accordingly.
Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad Bhalwana for Petitioners.
Malik Allah Yar for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st February, 2002.
JUDGMENT
On 29‑4‑1981 the petitioners filed an application praying that award dated 12‑4‑1981 be made rule of the Court. The application was resisted by the respondent by denying the execution of the arbitration agreement and consequently the authority of the arbitrator to make the award. The matter was pending when on 18‑10‑1985 petitioners, respondent No. 1 and learned counsel for the parties made a statement that Mehr Noor Akbar has been appointee as Referee and whatever statement he makes in the Court the case be decided accordingly and that the said statement shall be binding upon the parties. The said Referee appeared in Court on 29‑3‑1990 and gave a statement that as a Referee he made some inquiries and has concluded that the award dated 12‑4‑1981 be not made rule of the Court and the application of the petitioner be dismissed. Learned trial Court dismissed the application accordingly. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Chitinot, on 4‑6‑1994.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends with reference to the case of Faiz -ul‑Haq and another v. Abdus Salam and 3 others (1990 MLD 106) that the Referee had acted as Arbitrator and that his statement ought not to have been accepted without giving a chance to his clients to file, objections. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supports the impugned order.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that the Referee has stated that his conclusion is based on "ﻥﻳﺑﻥﺎﻬﭼ" and "ﻖﻴﻗﺤﺘ" However, even if the statement is not based on personal knowledge, at least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the statement cannot be said to be at par with an award. Even if it be what of importance is the intention of the parties as reflected in their statement dated 18‑10‑1989. It appears that earlier the parties had sought the decision of the matter through their nominated Arbitrators but then it was stated that the arbitrators are not willing to act. Thereafter, the parties unanimously agreed to be bound by the statement of Mehr Noor Akbar. The exact words are as under:‑‑
Thus, it was upon insistence of the parties that the learned trial Court agreed to adopt the said suggested mode of decision of the application and having thus committed themselves, none of the parties can be allowed to resile. I, therefore, do not find any case being made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. This civil revision is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./J‑47/L Revision dismissed.