1989 PLP 3952 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, ACTG.C.J.--This High Court Appeal is directed against an order dated 24-4-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.4 of 1988 dismissing the appellant's objections to the Award on the ground that the same were not filed within time.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the Award was given by the sole arbitrator on 10-12-1987 and the same was filed in the High Court on 2-1-1988 alongwith an application under section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It seems that the appellant was served with a notice of the filing of the Award for appearance on or before 1st February, 1988 before the Additional Registrar (O.S). The appellant's Advocate put in appearance before the Additional Registrar of the above date and he has allowed time to file objections, if any, by 1st March, 1988. The appellant instead of filing the objections within time allowed, filed an application under section 148, P.P.C. which was allowed and the time for filing objections was extended by two weeks on 1-3-1988. The appellant instead of filing objections. within the above period of two weeks, filed the same on 21-3-1988. When the case had come up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, he was pleased to dismiss the objections on the ground of limitation. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present High Court Appeal.

3. In support of the above appeal Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant has urged as follows:-- (i) That since there was no arbitration agreement between the appellant and the respondent, there was no question of limitation for filing of the objections to the Award; and that the appellant was entitled to file an application under section 33 of the Act within a period of three years. (ii) That the same alleged arbitration agreement is also subject-matter of J.M.No.39/87 in which the appellant had denied the signature and the existence of the agreement.

4. We had called for the arbitration proceedings record, from which it appears that on record of the arbitrator, there is an alleged agreement of arbitration to which the appellant is a party. It also seems from the diary maintained by the arbitrator for the arbitration proceedings that the appellant was sent notice for appearance thrice but according to the arbitrator, he did not appear. Be that as it may, the fact remains that after the filing of an application under section 14 of the Act alongwith Award the appellant was served with a notice, which was admittedly served on him inasmuch as the appellant's Advocate had appeared before the Additional Registrar on 1st February, 1988 and obtained time to file the objections, which was granted up to 1st March, 1988 after that, as observed hereinabove, the appellant applied for extension of time for filing of objections within two weeks which, was allowed and even then the objections were not filed. The period of limitation for filing objections under Article 158 of the first Schedule is thirty days from the date of the service of the notice of filing of the Award. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel that merely the fact that the appellant was denying the factum of the arbitration agreement, he could ignore the notice served upon him under section 14 of the Act of filing of the Award and could file objections beyond the period of limitation. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly dismissed the objections.

5. The appeal has no merit and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./M-850/K Appeal dismissed.