2002 PLP 3796 (YLR)

Mian Ghulam Hussain for Appellants. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th September, 2001. In pursuance of the arbitration agreement between the parties, the dispute was referred to the arbitration of Ghulam Ahmad Shaikh and Abdus Salam Khan, the arbitrator, by the Court; the arbitrators made and pronounced their award; the appellant filed objection to the award claiming that the arbitrators have mis-conducted the proceedings; issues were framed; parties were put to trial and the learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 1‑10‑1991, made the award rule of the Court and passed a decree in pursuance thereof. Hence this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the arbitrators have not considered and discussed the evidence produced before them and therefore, the award is bad for misreading and non‑reading of evidence. Similar is the objection about the order of learned Civil Judge, that the Court has overlooked the evidence produced before him, on the issue framed on the objection petition tiled by the appellant.

3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. According to the law reported as 1985 SCMR 957, it is clear that the award of arbitrators should not be set aside by fishing the latent error in the arbitration proceedings, but there must be some error or illegality, apparent on the face .of the award. From the award, it stands proved that the arbitrators being conscious of the nature in dispute between the parties, by considering the evidence produced before them, have disposed or each and every claim and thus having awarded an amount of Rs.2,90,000 including the amount of Rs.1,66,563 i.e. refunding the security deposited by the respondent. The submission that the arbitrators and the Court has misread the evidence on the record is not established, therefore, there is no illegality or error either in the award or order impugned before this Court.

4. As regards the submission that the Court has awarded 10% interest on the amount awarded to the respondent till the realization, therefore, the order is bad in law, suffice it to say that the order dated 1‑10‑1991, in which 10% interest was awarded to the respondent, was suspended by this Court on 1‑5‑1992. It remains suspended' till the final hearing of this appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, I do not find that the Court below has given any reason for grant of interest on the awarded amount, therefore, to this extent the order of the learned Civil Judge is set aside.

5. In the light of above, this appeal is dismissed upholding the order of the learned Civil Judge, to the extent of making the award rule of the Court, but is partly accepted, by setting aside the order qua the interest awarded by the learned Civil Judge on the award. H.B.T./P‑112/L Order accordingly.