Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 259‑P of 1984, decided on Ist July, 1985.

(From the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 26‑6‑1984, passed in Regular First Appeal No. 32 of 1982) .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Contentions raised already taken before High Court, dealt with at length and repelled for cogent reasons‑‑View taken by High Court being fully supported by material on record, no interference called for‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Amirzada Khan, Advocate‑General, N.W.F.P. instructed by Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.

Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1st July, 1985.

.‑‑On an application made by the respondent, the Senior Civil Judge, Peshawar, referred to arbitration the dispute arising in respect of a contract of work executed between the petitioners (Pakistan Railways) and the respondent. The arbitrator submitted his award to Court on 11‑5‑1981 and the same day the Court adjourned the matter to 28‑5‑1981 for filing of objections. The objection on behalf of the petitioners was filed on 28‑6‑1981 which was rejected as being time‑barred and no objection having been filed to the award by the respondent, the same was made the rule of the Court. An appeal filed by the petitioners before the High Court having failed, they have now sought leave to appeal.

2. The contentions are two‑fold, namely, (1) that the objection filed by the petitioners to the award was not time‑barred, and (2) that the rate at which dewatering charges had been allowed by the arbitrator, not being in accord with the agreed rate, the award was void on the face of it. These contentions which had been taken before the High Court also, have been dealt with by that Court at length and repelled A for cogent reasons. On 11‑5‑1981, when the award had been filed in Court, the presence of counsel for the parties was duly noted and in their presence the matter had been fixed for 28‑5‑1981 for filing of objections. On that date the presiding officer was not present and the case was posted for 23‑6‑1981, on which date only a request was made for extension of time without raising any grievance that the petitioners had no notice or knowledge of filing of the award. As regards the second contention, the High Court noted that the rate of dewatering under the agreement, of which a copy had been delivered to the respondent, had been Rs.10.90 per 100 c.ft that the amended rate of Rs.10.90 per 1000 c.ft. had not been signed by either party and that there was no other evidence on the record to show that the change in the rate had been agreed to by the respondent. We thus find that the view taken by the High Court is fully supported by the material on record and no interference is called for with the same. The petition is dismissed.

M.I. Petition 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.