1989 PLP 1999 (SCMR)
Hakim NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1999 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | Hakim NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1999 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1999 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1999 (SCMR) (Hakim NOOR MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Aqil Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A.Oureshi, Adovcate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 4‑3‑85 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench passed in Civil Revision No.114/85). (a) Arbitration‑‑ ‑‑‑Petitioner raised objection that although a panel of six arbitrators had been appointed yet only four had signed the award‑‑Evidence, ex1sted before the Trial Court that award was a unanimous one but two of the arbitrators could not sign the same on account of illness‑‑Objection thus was rightly rejected. (b) Registration Act (XVI of 1908) ‑‑‑S.17‑‑Arbitration‑‑Award dealt with immovable property‑‑Registration not necessary. Kh. Muhammad Yousuf v. Kh. Abdur Rashid PLD 1967 Kar508 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑There was a dispute between the parties in respect of a house situate in Farid Town, Sahiwal. On 17‑5‑73, they executed an agreement whereby they referred the dispute to a panel of six arbitrators. The arbitrators gave the award on 12‑9‑73, declaring that the house belonged to the parties in equal shares. On 15‑11‑1973, the respondent moved an application before the Civil Court at Sahiwal for making the award the rule of the Court. The petitioner raised a number of objections. After prolonged proceedings the Civil Judge by an order dated 12‑2‑84 rejected the objections and made the award rule of the Court. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. He then took a revision to the High Court but that too met with the same fate. He now seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel but we are not persuaded that the decision of the learned Civil Judge, affirmed by the District Judge, in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners suffers from any legal infirmity. One of the objections raised by the petitioner was that although a panel of six arbitrators had been appointed; yet only four had signed the award. In this context, it may be mentioned that there was evidence before the trial Court that the award was a unanimous one but two of the arbitrators could not sign it on account of illness. It is also contended that as the award dealt with immovable property, it should have been got reg1stered under the provisions of the Reg1stration Act. This objection B was rejected by the trial Court on the authority of the decision of the West Pakistan High Court in Kh.Muhammad Yousuf v. Kh. Abdur Rashid PLD 1967 Kar. 508.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case where leave should be granted to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. M.A.K./N‑180/S Petition dismissed.