Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 24th March 1971, in Revision Application No. 253 of 1970).

Arbitration

‑Award‑Suit for rendition of accounts by plaintiff against S, her duly constituted attorney‑M, son of plaintiff also impleaded as pro forma defendant but no relief claimed against him‑Arbitration proceedings pending suit and award given against only S‑Award made rule of Court but on appeal Additional District Judge setting aside award on ground that it was incomplete no decree having been passed against M‑High Court in revision reversing order of appellate Court and restoring that of trial Court‑Contention that High Court, under S. 115, C. P. C., had no jurisdiction to interfere with order of Additional District Judge and secondly that award was incomplete, no decree having been passed against M‑Held, no relief having been claimed against M, arbitrator was justified in dismissing claim against NI and further since Additional District Judge had committed an illegality in setting aside a valid award, High Court was competent under S. 115, C. P. C. to interfere‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 30.

N. A. Faruqui, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Aziz Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th August 1971.

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑--

Respondent No. 1 filed Suit No. 373 of 1965 in the Court of Civil Judge, Karachi, against the petitioner for rendition of account on the allegation that he was her duly constituted attorney and had managed the property. On the application of respondent No. 1, Mohammad Shafi son of Zubeda Khatoon was impleaded as a defendant on the allegation that it was he who was realising the rent and managed the property. Mohammad Shafi was impleaded as a pro forma defendant and no relief was claimed against him.

On the 15th December 1966, the parties referred their dispute to the sole arbitration Mr. Azmatullah, Advocate. The Arbitrator heard the matter and passed the decree of Rs. 21,730 against the petitioner. He did not pass any decree against respondent No. 2 as no relief was claimed against him. The petitioner challenged this award before the trial Court and his objections were dismissed on 8th October 1969, and the award was made a rule of the Court. The matter was then taken before the Additional District Judge, Karachi, who accepted the appeal on the 6th August 1970, and set aside the award. This order was challenged by respondent No. 1 in Revision Petition No. 253 of 1970 and the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, by order dated the 24th March 1971, accepted the revision petition and set aside the order of the Additional District Judge. Consequently, the order of the trial Court was restored and the award became operative between the parties. This order is being challenged in this petition for special leave to appeal.

Mr. N. A. Faruqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged two points in support of the petition. In the first place, the learned counsel has contended that the High Court has no jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. to interfere with the order of the Additional District Judge on the ground that it was an erroneous one. Secondly, he contended that the Arbitrator has given an incomplete award and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was justified in setting aside the award. None of contentions raised by the learned counsel has any force. It is quite clear from the facts of the present case that no relief was claimed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2. In view of this the Arbitrator was perfectly justified in dismissing the claim of respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2. By doing so, he has not committed any illegality or been guilty of any mis conduct. The learned Additional District, Judge, therefore, was not justified in setting aside the award on the ground that no relief was granted against respondent No. 2. By doing so he has committed an illegality and, therefore, the High Court was quite competent to set aside the order of the Additional District Judge under section 115, C. P. C.

The next contention of the petitioner that the Arbitrator has given an incomplete award has also no force. No relief has been claimed by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2. There was no inter pleader claim between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and therefore, the Arbitrator was not bound to determine their dispute. In‑these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has committed any misconduct. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.