Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 691 of 1985, decided on 21st April, 1986.

‑‑ S. 14‑Award‑Filing of depositions and documents alongwith award‑Award has to be filed alongwitn any depositions and docu ments which might have been taken and proved before arbitrator --It is only after filing of award alongwith depositions and documents that Court can give notice to parties of filing award.

Ch. Inayatullah for Petitioner.

M. N. Baig for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 21st April, 1986.

This revision petition has been filed to assail the legality of an order passed by Mr. Javaid Rashid .Mahboobi, Civil Judge, Ist Class, Lahore on 8th January, 1985 whereby he on an application filed by the respondents directed the arbitrator to file alongwith the award documents and other depositions which were adduced by the parties during the arbitration proceedings before him and further observed that on receipt of the docu ments alongwith the award the parties would be given a fresh opportunity to file their objections.

2. The respondents on acceptance of the tender offered by the petitioner allotted him the work of "Construction of Administrative and other Utility Buildings at Small Industries Estate. Faisalabad". On the execution of the work the petitioner submitted a final bill. A dispute arose between the parties over the payment of the bill. The petitioner filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for a direction to the respondents to file the agreement entered into between the parties and refer the dispute to arbitration in accordance with its terms. This applica tion was opposed by the respondents. The trial Court vide its order dated 30th of March, 1983 appointed Mr. Muhammad Ayub Shah, President, Institute of Engineers (Pakistan), Lahore as an arbitrator. The award given by him was received in the Court on 15th of March, 1984 on which date copies of the award were given to counsel for the parties who were present on that date and they were required to file their objections, if any, within 30 days. The respondents filed their objections on 15th of April, 1984, one day after the expiry of the period of 30 days. On 12th of June, 1984, the respondents filed an application under section 14 of the Arbitra tion Act praying that the arbitrator be directed to file depositions and documents which were made or tendered before him during the arbitration proceedings. , It was contended that before the filing of the depositions and documents alongwith the award, the parties could not be asked to file their objections. This application was resisted by the petitioner. The trial Court relying on an unreported judgment of this Court in Syed Ikram Gardezi v. Rahim Jan (Civil Revision No. 222 of 1981) accepted the application by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that filing of an award without depositions and documents is only an irregularity which does not vitiate the award and since the respondents had failed to file objections to the award within 30 days of its tiling, they cannot now be afforded any further opportunity to file objections on the plea that depositions and documents were not filed alongwith the award. This argument is repelled by learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The relevant law bearing on the above controversy is contained in section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act. It runs as under :‑‑

"The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award."

5. The above provision of law unambiguously contemplates that the award has to be filed alongwith any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before the arbitrator and it is only after the A filing of the award alongwith the depositions and documents that the Court can give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The same view prevailed in Syed Ikram Gardezi v. Rahim Jan (C. R.No. 222 of 1981) wherein it bas been observed that the word "thereupon" occurring in section 14(2) indicates that the Court is to give notice to the parties only after the arbitrator has filed the award together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before him and any notice issued before the depositions and documents have been filed by the arbitrator is premature. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to cite any authority to the contrary. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge is unexceptionable and does not call for interference.

6. In the result this revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

M. Y. H. 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.