1997 PLP 863 (CLC)
ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1997 PLP 863 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Kharamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 863 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 863 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Kharamat Nazir Bhandari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 863 (CLC) (ABDUL RASHID and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th February, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.17‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. for recall of decree obtained on basis of arbitration awards‑‑ Dismissal of such application on the ground that S.12(2), C.P.C. was not applicable to decrees obtained on basis of arbitration award‑‑‑Order in question, was maintained by Revisional Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Applicability of S.12(2), C.P.C. having been settled by Supreme Court in Muhammad Yasin's case (1993 SCMR 437), whereby it was declared that S.12(2), C.P.C. was equally applicable to arbitration decrees‑‑‑High Court on basis of Supreme Court judgment declared impugned order of Trial Court as also of Appellate Court to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑‑Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. would be deemed to be pending which would be expeditiously disposed of in accordance with law. Muhammad Yasin v. Sh. Hanif Ahmad and others 1993 SCMR 437 rel. Government of Sindh and another v. Ch. Fazal Muhammad and another PLD 1991 SC 197 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Government of Sindh and another v. Ch. Fazal Muhammad and another PLD 1991 SC 197 ref. Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioners. Muhammad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th February, 1996. This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 11978/92; 12220/92, 9045/93, 14492/93 and Civil Revision Nos. 450/93, since the question involved is the same.
2. Briefly in all these cases the petitioners filed applications under section 12 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) for recall of the decree obtained on the basis of arbitration awards. The applications were summarily rejected initially by the Trial Court and then by the revisional Court on the sole ground that section 12 (2), C.P.C was not applicable to the decree obtained on the strength of the arbitration award. Judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Government of Sindh and another v. Ch. Fazal Muhammad and another (PLD 1991 SC 197) was followed.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of these petitions have submitted that the question involved, viz, applicability of section 12 (2), C. P. C to the arbitration decrees has since been settled by the Supreme Court and they have cited Muhammad Yasin v. Sh. Hanif Ahmad and others (1993 SCMR 437). The submission is correct. In the later judgment the Court has held that section 12(2), C.P.C is equally applicable to arbitration decrees. The Supreme Court has noticed the earlier judgment and has distinguished the same.
4. In view of the declaration of law by the Supreme Court and respectfully following the same, I allow all these petitions and declare the impugned order of the Trial Court as well as of the District Court passed in revisions/appeals as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly, the applications under section 12 (2), C.P.C shall be deemed to be pending in the Trial Court which shall now be disposed of in. accordance with law and expeditiously. In all these cases the parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A/A‑101/L Petition accepted.