1991 PLP 842 (CLC)
IMAM BAKHSH and others ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 842 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abdul Waheed, J |
| Parties | IMAM BAKHSH and others ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 842 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 842 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abdul Waheed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 842 (CLC) (IMAM BAKHSH and others ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Qazi Khurshid Alam for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑ Ss. 14 & 17 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ‑‑‑ During pendency of application for making award rule of Court, application moved by respondent for sending thumb‑impressions of marginal witnesses of arbitration agreement and award to Finger Print Expert for comparison and report, was accepted by Trial Court and order of Court was upheld in appeal ‑‑‑ Concurrent orders of Courts below based on cogent reasons, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court when discretion exercised by Courts below was neither arbitrary nor violative of any provisions of law.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑ Ss. 14 & 17 ‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ‑‑‑ During pendency of application for making award rule of Court, application moved by respondent for sending thumb‑impressions of marginal witnesses of arbitration agreement and award to Finger Print Expert for comparison and report, was accepted by Trial Court and order of Court was upheld in appeal ‑‑‑ Concurrent orders of Courts below based on cogent reasons, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court when discretion exercised by Courts below was neither arbitrary nor violative of any provisions of law. Qazi Khurshid Alam for Petitioner. Khadim Hussain, respondent No.3 riled, an application against the petitioners and respondents Nos.4 to 6 under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for making an award as rule of the Court. During the pendency of the application, Khadim. Hussain, respondent No.3 moved an application for sending the thumb‑impressions of Falak Sher and Imam Bakhsh, who are marginal witnesses of the arbitration agreement and the award to the Finger Print Expert for comparison and report as Imam Bakhsh while appearing as a witness of the petitioners had denied his thumb impressions on these two documents. This application was opposed by the petitioners. The Civil Judge, Bhakkar vide his order dated 3rd of March, 1990 accepted the application.
2. The petitioners challenged the above order in a revision petition which was har4. by the Addl. District Judge‑11, Bhakkar who upheld the same vide his order dated 19th of December, 1990.
3. The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition to assail the orders of the Civil Judge as well as the Addl. District Judge.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Addl. District Judge have in their orders given detailed reasons for accepting the application Of respondent No.3 and sending the thumb -impressions of Falak Sher and Imam Bakhsh on the arbitration agreement and the award to the Finger Print Expert for comparison and report. Learned counsel has not been able to assail the cogency of these reasons. The discretion exercised by the learned Courts below is neither arbitrary nor violative of any provision of law. I, therefore, do not find any valid ground to interfere with the disc exercised by the learned Court below.
5. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./1‑253/L Petition dismissed.