Find a Lawyer

First Appeal from Original Order No. 54 of 1975, decided on 21^st December, 1985.

---S. 33--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 158--Award--Setting aside of--Application for--Limitation--Starting point--Time limit of 30 days prescribed by law to file application for setting aside award would start from date of service of notice of Court on party concerned- Objection application filed after expiry of said period of 30 days, held, could not be thrown out on ground of limitation if notice was not served personally on party but on Law Officer, who was not recognized agent of such party.

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Appellant.

Muhammad Afzal Qureshi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 21st December, 1985.

The respondent is a Government Contractor. In 1969, he obtained a contract from the Pakistan Public Works Department for the construction of the telephone exchange building at Samanabad in Lahore. the contract contained an arbitration clause. There was some dispute between him and the Pakistan Public Works Department over certain payment. On 22-9-1973 he moved an application before the Civil Court at Lahore for filing the arbitration agreement and for reference of the dispute between the parties to an Arbitrator. Consequently, Mr. Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. He filed his award on 30-9-1974 holding that the respondent was entitled to receive Rs.1,01,719.88 from the Pakistan Public Works Department. After the receipt of the award the learned civil Court sent notices to the petitioners, two of whom had their offices in Karachi. The notices were sent for 4-11-1974. Petitioner No.3 who had his office in Lahore was duly served but petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 who worked in Karachi could not be served for that date. The learned Civil Court then again sent notices to petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 for 9-12-1974. The notices were again not served upon them; instead they were received by Mr. S.A. Manan who was a Law officer in the Pakistan Public Works Department. On 14-12-1974 petitioners Nos. l and 2 filed their objections. On the same day, that is, 14-12-1974 the learned trial Court rejected the objections on the ground that these had been filed out of time. By the same order he made the award rule of the Court and passed a decree in terms thereof. The petitioners have come in appeal to this Court.

2. Under Article 158 of the Limitation Act the application to set, aside an award is required to be made within 30 days. The starting point of the limitation is the date of service of the notice. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that no service had been effected upon petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, inasmuch as the notices were not served upon them but on the Law Officer who was not their recognized agent, consequently, the objections filed on 14-12-1974 could not be thrown out on the ground of limitation. On behalf of the respondent it is not disputed that service was effected not on petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, but on Mr. S.A. Manan. It is also not disputed that Mr. S.A. Manan was not the recognized agent of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. That being the position, the order of the trial Court in rejecting the objections on the ground of limitation cannot be sustained. 1 would accordingly set aside the order of the learned trial Court and remand the case back to it for disposal in accordance with law. The costs of this appeal will abide the final event.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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