Find a Lawyer

Review Application No. 26‑C in First Appeal from Original Order No. 42 of 1982, decided on 2nd December, 1982.

‑‑Ss. 15, 16 & 17‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 152 Limita tion‑Award‑Petition‑r filing objection to award after expiry of period of limitation and trial Court pronounced judgment without consideration of objection‑Existence of arbitration agreement between parties presumed unless objection filed which was not done within time prescribed‑Award based on oral submission can be enforced‑Filing of arbitration agreement and recording of evi dence not mandatory and failure in such behalf does not render award void‑Arbitrator is to make enquiry and not to keep record of enquiry‑Award by arbitrator is equivalent to judgment law does not require that award be proved or exhibited or arbitrator be examined‑Petitioner, held, failed to substantiate in circum stances that award was void or argued any point, not available at time order sought to be reviewed was passed..‑‑[Award].

Taj Muhammad Khan Langah for Appellant..

‑This is an application for review of our order dated 12th October, 1982, in F.A.O. No. 42/1982.

2. We dismissed appeal of the appellant under section 30 (i) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order of Additional Administrative Civil Judge, Multan refusing to set aside award holding that since the objections filed against the award were barred by limitation no ground existed to interfere with the order, dated 25th September, 1982, of the learned trial Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants us to review that order on account of mistake apparent on the face of the record. The submission made is that the award on which the decree is. based was void and could not be made rule of Court for more than cane reason. It has been con tended that the arbitration agreement between the parties and the evi dence recorded by the arbitrator had not been filed in Court with the award, that even if filing of the arbitration agreement in Court was not necessary an oral agreement had to be proved which was not done, that the award had not been exhibited and the Court could not look into it, that the award was not proved in Court: by examining the arbitrator to enable the present applicant to cross‑examine the arbitrator and the decree was against rule of natural justice, and that the award being a registrable document relating to immovable property it was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

4. The application of respondents was made under section 14 (p) of the Arbitration Act. According to the provisions contained in the said Act the Court was to exercise power under sections 15 and 16 of the said Act and in case the award was not to be modified or corrected on the grounds given in section 15 or it was not required to be permitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration on the grounds enumerated in sub‑clause (a), (b), (c) of clause (i) of section 16 thereof the Court was to proceed and pronounce the judgment under section 17 of the said Act. In this case. petitioner had notice of filing of award on 31st March, 1981 and filed objections to the award in the Court on 5th May, 1981 which having been filed after 30 days prescribed by Article 152 of Limitation Act were not considered and the trial Court announced the judgment according to the award. The contentions of learned counsel that the award was invalid which made it void have no force. The existence of arbitration agree ment between the parties is presumed unless objections to it are filed which was not done by the applicant within time prescribed by law. The Act contains provision for enforcement of an award based upon an oral submission It has not been urged that the arbitrator at all recorded any evidence which should have been filed in Court alongwith the award. According to the established principles of law filing of the arbitration agreement and recording of the evidence is not mandatory and failure in that behalf in the circumstances of the present case does not render the award void. An arbitrator is to make inquiry but is not bound to keep a record of such an inquiry. There is no law which requires an arbitrator to keep record of his inquiry. Similarly an award by an arbitrator under the Act is equivalent to a judgment and there is no law which requires it to be proved or exhibited or to examine the arbitrator. Learned coun sel for the petitioner has not supported his submissions in this behalf. There is no material record to show that the award in the instant case was compulsorily registrable but was not so registered. In Kh. Muhammad Yousaf v. Kh. Abdul Rashid and others (P L D 1967 Kar. 508) it was held that Court is not precluded from dealing with award for its non‑registration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged any point which was not available to him at the time the order sought to be reviewed was passed and has failed to substantiate his submissions that the award was void. There is no force in this application which is dismissed in limine.

M. A. K. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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