1987 PLP 1904 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, through COLLECTOR D.G. KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1904 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, through COLLECTOR D.G. KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1904 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1904 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1904 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, through COLLECTOR D.G. KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Ijaz Ali, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgments dated 24-10-1979 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in C.R. No. 134/1977 and F.A.O. No.297 of 1978).
Art. 185(3)--Question of fact--Argument relating to a question of fact not having been raised before High Court, Supreme Court declined to entertain same at leave to appeal stage--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
S. 20--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Award by Arbitrator after expiry of prescribed period--Objections filed being time-barred, award made rule of Court--Plea that no extension having been granted beyond period of four months, award was void and nullity and no bar of limitation would operate there against, repelled- Court having sent letter and reminders to Arbitrator which had been interpreted by Courts below as having allowed extension of time- Question of extension having been concluded by findings of fact and no justification having been made out for Supreme Court to interfere, leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by the Provincial Government and others from judgments dated 24-10-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby: One, petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of an Arbitration Award rendered against them and made rule of the Court, was dismissed; and Two, an execution appeal relating to the same case filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The contesting parties entered into a contract for construction of a part of D.G. Khan and D.I. Khan Road. Disputes having arisen, the respondent side filed a suit against the petitioners wherein reference was made to an Arbitrator. He entered upon reference on 3-5-1975. On 14-10-1975, the Award was rendered against the petitioners. They filed objections to the Award on 29-11-1975 which having been barred by time the Award was made rule of the Court against the petitioners on 12-2-1976. The petitioners' Appeal and Civil Revision failed and they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has contended that according to the agreement the Arbitrator could not have been below the rank of a Superintending Engineer, while the Court had appointed an XEN who acted as Arbitrator and rendered the Award which, therefore, was illegal; and secondly, that the Arbitrator having entered upon reference on 3-5-1975 the Award was rendered after four months. No extension having been granted beyond the period of four months it was void and nullity; and lastly, that the Award being itself a nullity the objections even if filed technically beyond the period of limitation, no bar of limitation would operate against the petitioners (on account of the Award being a nullity).
4. The first argument which relates to the question of fact, was not raised before the High Court. We do not consider it proper to entertain it at this late stage.
5. It is admitted .by the learned counsel that the Court had sent letters and reminders to the Arbitrator which have been interpreted by the learned Courts below as having allowed extension of time to the Arbitrator. The relevant correspondence has not been placed on the record. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of this case the question of extension also has been concluded by the findings of fact regarding which no justification has been made out for this Court to interfere. That being so, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners on question of limitation-petitioner's objections being time-barred, also loses force. This petition No.141 of 1980 accordingly has no force and is thus dismissed. The other petition (C.P. No. 142 of 1980), according to the learned counsel would have been pressed only if the leave to appeal would have been granted in CPSLA No.141 of 1980. He was, therefore, unable to press the second petition. The same is also dismissed. M.I. /P-20/S Petition dismissed