2001 PLP 115 (MLD)

Muhammad Masood Khan for Defendant. The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant for providing loaders and dumper on rent basis at the site work of CHEC Millwala Dredging Company (Pvt.) Ltd. The plaintiff preferred claims regarding the period within which the plaintiff's machinaries were kept idle by the defendant at its site. The matter was referred to an arbitrator who had made an award in the sum of Rs.86,84,990 alongwith cost of arbitration in the sum of Rs.30,000 payable within one month. The said award dated 6‑12‑1997 was filed in this Court and registered as Suit No. 1733 of 1997 which was disposed of by consent of the parties on 13‑8‑1998 whereby the award was set aside and the parties were again asked to appoint their respective arbitrators. The plaintiff appointed Mr. Shamshad Ahmed Khan as his arbitrator but the defendant had failed to appoint their arbitrator. The said arbitrator issued several notices to the defendant for appearance before him in response to which the defendant appeared and the arbitrator supplied them order of this Court as well as claim of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to appear and filed reply to the claim of the plaintiff, therefore, the arbitrator proceeded ex parte against them and passed the award impugned in this case which was filed in this Court on 14‑11‑1998. Notice was issued to the defendants for filing objections which was served on them on 24‑12‑1998. The defendants filed their objections to the award on 3‑2‑1999 and took several pleas including the validity of the award. The matter was fixed in Court for hearing of C.M.A. No. 2391 of 1999 and orders on award. My brother Attaur Rahman, J., passed a detailed order on 14‑7‑1999 and rejected the objections as well as the said C.M.A. No.‑ 2391 of 1999 and observed that the defendants are at liberty to raise other objections to the award if so permitted by law. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as counsel for defendant at length and have perused the record available before me. It is contended by the counsel for the plaintiff that the objections filed by the defendants on the face of it are barred by time. In support of his above contention he has placed reliance on the case of Superintending Engineer Communication and Works Highway Circle Kohat v. Mian Faiz Muhammad 8n Co. Akora Khattak (PLD 1996 SC 797). On the other hand the counsel for the defendants has reiterated his arguments earlier advanced and prayed that the objections be entertained and the award be set aside. He has not been able to advance any fresh grounds/objections in support of his case. It is pertinent to note that the award in this case was filed on 14‑11‑1998 and the defendants filed their objections on 3‑2‑1999 beyond the period of 30 days as provided. It is further interesting to note that previously also an award was filed in this Court and registered as Suit No. 1733 of 1997 which was disposed of by consent of the parties on 13‑8‑1998 whereby the parties were asked to appoint their respective arbitrators. The defendants even failed to appoint their arbitrator and comply with the said order. The objections filed to this award on the face of it were time‑barred and were already rejected by this Court vide orders dated 14‑7‑1999. No fresh objections were filed by the counsel for the defendant. In the above case of Superintending Engineer v. Mian Faiz Muhammad (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:‑‑ "Filing of objections to the award‑‑Limitation‑‑Objections to the award filed beyond time could not be taken into consideration by the Court. " Keeping in mind the above provisions of law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court it is abundantly clear that the defendants filed their objections beyond time prescribed for same purpose. Accordingly I made the award rule of the Court Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑83/K ??????????????????????????????????????????? Award made rule of the Court.