Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 847 of 1979, decided on 11th July, 1979.

--- Art. 158 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 Objection against award-Limitation-Former award remitted to arbit rators for making fresh award and fresh award filed on 18-5-1977 Petitioners filing application on 19-7-1978 praying for objection petition filed by petitioners against earlier award in regard to same dispute to be treated as objection petition qua award in question-Petition filed on 19-7-1978 as such an objection petition though purportedly moved under S. 151-Petition filed on 19-7-1978 being for all intents and purposes an objection petition against subsequent award its competency, held, to be examined in light of provisions of Art. 158, Limitation Act, 1908 and same being barred according to such provisions, trial Court justified in dismissing it as time-barred.--[Award].

Thai Development Authority v. Nisar Ahmed Qureshi P L D 1962 Lah. 830 ref.

Mian Abdul Aziz for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 11th July 1979.

This civil revision is directed against an order, dated the 8th March, 1979 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Multan, whereby he had dismissed a petition filed by the petitioners, Messrs Burmah Oil Mills Ltd., against an award given by an arbitrator with regard to a dispute arising out of a contract entered into by the petitioners with the respondents, Messrs Colony Textile Mills Ltd.

2. The petition was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on the ground of limitation. It was pointed out by him that the award was filed on 18th May, 1977, but the petition was made on 19th July, 1978. According to Article 158 of the 1st Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908, the petition should have been submitted within 30 days of the filing of the award but it was made long after the expiry of that period. The learned Senior Civil Judge, therefore, dismissed the petition for being time barred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petition in question was made under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, here inafter referred to as the Code, and, therefore, the provisions of Article 158 were not attracted to that petition. I am unable to agree with him. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the application moved by the petitioners under section- 151 of the Code was, in fact, an objection petition inasmuch as the prayer made therein was that the objection petition filed by the petitioners against an earlier award in regard to the same dispute may be treated as their objection petition qua the award it question. The former award was remitted to the arbitrator for making a fresh award which he did on 18th May, 1977. It seems that when the petitioners felt that if they filed an objection petition as such it would be hit by the law of limitation they thought of the device of presenting it as an application under section 151 of the Code praying therein' that their former objection petition may be treated as their objection petition against the award filed on 18th May, 1977. The fact of the matter is that on 19th July, 1978 the raised objections against the said award not by filing on objection petition as such but by adopting the earlier objection petition tailing in question the former award and thus their application under section 151 of the Code was, for all intents and purposes, an objection petition against the subsequent award. Therefore, its competency old to be examined in the light of the provisions of Article 158 of the Limitation Act, and since it was time barred according to those provisions the learned Senior Civil Judge was justified in dismissing the same on the ground of imitation. It has also bee noted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, with reference to the Thal Development Authority v. Nisar Ahmad Qureshi (P L D 1962 Lah. 830) that although the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act did not permit the Court to condone delay in such like cases yet the petitioners had not made way prayer in that behalf.

4. The order of the learned trial Court as, therefore, not open to any legitimate exception. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.

M. Y. M. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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