1984 PLP 1585 (CLC)

‑‑ Ss. 24 & 4‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 47 & O. XXI, r.23‑A‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Writ‑Ade quate remedy‑Board of Arbitrators empowered to decide all or any of disputes arising in a notified market area other than a dispute to which all parties were dealers‑Fact that appellant had entered into agreement in capacity of a grower not stated in application and no such evidence led to give jurisdiction to Board of Arbitrators‑Board of Arbitrators not giving finding that appel lant was a grower and dispute was not between two dealers and dispute had arisen within notified market area‑Nothing on record available to show that dispute fell within boundaries of market area notified under S. 4, Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978‑Held, dispute in question was evidently between two dealers for which jurisdiction of Board of Arbitrators had been specifically excluded under S: 24, Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1978‑Board of Arbitrators had, no jurisdic tion to pass order without giving any finding that dispute between parties had arisen within notified market area‑Order passed by Arbirators Board was without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑Remedy of raising objection to execution of award of Arbit rators Board under S. 47, C. P. C., was therefore, not adequate in circumstances. Muhammad Fazil v. Commissioner for Payment of Wages and another 1974 P L C 89 ref. JUDGMENT KAMAL MUSTAFA BOKHARI, J.‑

This is an Intro‑Court Appeal from the order, dated 10th December, 1983 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1436 of 1983.

2. Respondent No. 2 applied to respondent No. 1, Chairman, Board of Arbitrators, Market Committee, Khanewal, District Multan, for the recovery of Rs. 40,500 from the appellant. That application appears to have been made on 30th July, 1983. After recording state ments of witnesses of respondent No. 2, a member of Arbitration Board, respondent No. 1, gave an award in ex parte proceedings in favour of respondent No. 2 against appellant for a sum of Rs. 40,500 on 8th October, 1983. Appellant challenged it by a constitutional petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 10th December, 1983 for the reason that alternate remedy before the civil Court for raising objections to the execution of the award was available to the appellant. It is stated that appellant filed objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were rejected for his failure to deposit the decretal amount.

3. It has been urged that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction because dispute was between the two dealers and did not relate to a notified market area of the, market committee. On behalf of respon dent No. 2 it has been submitted that the writ petition was not compe tent in the High Court because remedy of filing objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was available to the appellant which was adequate and in fact the objections were raised and rejected by the civil Court for failure to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security as required by Order XXI, rule 23 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Fazil v. Commissioner for Payment of A Wages and another (1974 P L C 89).

4. The Government by a notification under section 24 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 had given power to res pondent No. 1 to decide all or any of the disputes arising in a notified market area other than a dispute to which all the parties were dealers. The dispute between the parties was recovery of Rs. 40,500 on account of non‑supply of cotton by appellant to respondent No. 2 and for non payment of price of cotton supplied by respondent No. 2 to the appel lant. It was not stated in the application of respondent No. 2 that appellant had entered into the agreement with him in the capacity of a grower. No such evidence was led to give jurisdiction to the respondent No.

1. There is no finding of the Board of Arbitrators that the appel lant was a grower and the dispute was not between the two dealers. The Board of Arbitrators did not come to a conclusion that the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 2 had arisen within the noti fied market area. We find that half of the amount claimed was on account of cotton purchased by appellant from respondent No.

2. Evidently the dispute was between the two dealers for which jurisdiction of Board of Arbitrators had been specifically excluded under section 24 of the aforementioned Ordinance. Respondent No. 1 had also no juris diction to pass the impugned order without giving any finding that the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 2 had arisen within the notified market area. There is nothing on record for coming to a conclusion that it fell within the boundaries of market area notified under section 4 of the Ordinance. The impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. The remedy of raising objection to execution of the award of respondent No. 1 was not adequate. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is accepted, order, dated 10th December, 1983, by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside and the impugned order, dated 8th October, 1983 of respondent No. 1 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the circumstances the parties are left to bear their respective costs. M. Z. M. Appeal accepted.