Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUNJAB PROVINCE and another VS Respondent: Mian FAQIR SAIN
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal Title: PUNJAB PROVINCE and another vs Mian FAQIR SAIN Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 928 of 1982 Date of Judgment:1988-08-07 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 314 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th November, 1982 whereby the civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. ' The background is that a dispute ensued between the petitioner Punjab Province and the respondent Mian Faqir Sain, Government contractor, about some work done which was to be decided through arbitration. Every time the arbitrator was proposed by the respondent-contractor, but the petitioner would not accept him. It took considerable time until the arbitration application was disposed of on mutual agreement of the parties to appoint Mr. Justice (Retired) Zakiuddin Pal to act as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. This order was passed by the Senior Civil Judge with the consent of the parties. Nevertheless the petitioner challenged the same by way of civil revision which was heard by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore who dismissed the same as stated above. Hence the present petition. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that it was argued before the learned Single Judge that no consent was given on the part of the petitioner and in support of this an affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Chuhan, Government pleader was placed on the record. However, the learned Judge was not satisfied with the contents of the affidavit for the reason that no mala fides had been alleged expressly or impliedly against the Senior Civil Judge who passed the impugned order with the consent of the parties. This question of fact has been correctly decided as against the petitioner and in our view no interference is called for by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.