2000 PLP 27 (CLC)
Rao INAYAT ALI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus DIWAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 27 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Jamshed Ali and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | Rao INAYAT ALI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus DIWAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 27 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 27 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Jamshed Ali and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 27 (CLC) (Rao INAYAT ALI ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus DIWAN ALI ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Ghani for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Shafique for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th March, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(a), 11 & 39‑‑‑Agreement to appoint Referee‑‑‑Revocation of appointment‑‑‑Rejection of application ‑‑‑Appeal‑‑ ‑of amount, agreed to appoint Referee to decide the matter‑‑‑Appellant/borrower filed application for revocation of appointment of Referee alleging that he had lost confidence in him as he was acting in a partisan manner‑‑‑Said application was rejected on sole ground that one could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Decision to be bound by the statement of a Referee, was outcome of a contract and parties were at liberty to revoke it before it was acted upon‑‑‑Appellant had applied for revocation of appointment of Referee before recording statement of Referee‑‑‑Contention of respondent that once appellant had agreed to be bound by the decision/statement of Referee, he was bound by his own word and could not be allowed to retract, had no significance in circumstances as statement of Referee had not been recorded, before filing application for revocation of his appointment. Sher Zaman Khan v. Noor Zaman Khan and another PLD 1977 Lah. 672 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 10th March, 1999. ‑ SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.‑‑‑ Record has been received and examined. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we are disposing of this case as Pucca matter.
2. On 12‑6‑1995, the respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of money against the present petition. Evidence of the parties in the case was concluded on 16‑10‑1997. Perusal of the record shows that on 9‑12‑1997 the parties to this appeal agreed to appoint Muhammad Sharif as Referee and further stated to be bound by his Faisla. Accordingly, the learned trial Court directed the Referee to appear for his statement on 22‑12‑1997.
3. The appellant herein made an application to the learned trial Court for revoking the appointment of the Referee on the ground that he was acting in a partisan manner and, therefore, the appellant had lost confidence. in him. This application was listed for reply for 22‑12‑1997 on which date the reply to the application was submitted and arguments were heard. The statement of the Referee was also recorded on the said date. The application of the petitioner for revocation of the appointment of the Referee was rejected on the sole ground that one could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate. The principle of estoppel was also pressed against the appellant.
4. In support of this appeal, learned counsel placed reliance on Sher Zaman Khan v. Noor Zaman Khan and another PLD 1977 Lah. 672 to contend that once the petitioner had applied for the revocation of the authority of the Referee, the learned trial Court was not competent to record his statement and to base the decision thereon.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once the appellant had agreed to be bound by the decision/statement of the Referee he was bound by his own word and could not be allowed to retract.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Decision to be bound by the statement of the Referee is outcome of a contract and the parties will be at liberty to revoke it before it is acted upon. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is fully supported by the judgment in case of Sher Zaman Khan (supra).
7. Undisputedly, the appellant applied for the revocation of the appointment of the Referee before his statement was recorded. We have also noticed that the entire evidence in the case has already been recorded.
8. For what has been stated above; this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court to proceed in the matter in accordance with law, from the stage of revocation of appointment of the Referee. H. B. T./I‑115/L Appeal allowed.