1989SCMR314 (PLP)
PUNJAB PROVINCE and another — Petitioner Versus Mian FAQIR SAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR314 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | PUNJAB PROVINCE and another — Petitioner Versus Mian FAQIR SAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR314 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR314 (PLP)?
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: 1989SCMR314 (PLP) (PUNJAB PROVINCE and another — Petitioner Versus Mian FAQIR SAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988.
- Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th November. 1982 in Civil Revision No. 1538 of 1982).
S. 34--Arbitrator was appointed by Senior Civil Judge with consent of parts- Petitioner argued in-civil revision before High Court that he had given no consent and in support an affidavit was filed by petitioner--High Court was dissatisfied with contents of affidavit for reason that no mala fides had been alleged expressly or impliedly against Senior Civil Judge who passed impugned order of appointment of arbitrator with consent of parties--Supreme Court coming to conclusion that question of fact had been correctly decided against petitioner and declined interference.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 34‑‑Arbitrator was appointed by Senior Civil Judge with consent of parts‑ Petitioner argued in‑civil revision before High Court that he had given no consent and in support an affidavit was filed by petitioner‑‑High Court was dissatisfied with contents of affidavit for reason that no mala fides had been alleged expressly or impliedly against Senior Civil Judge who passed impugned order of appointment of arbitrator with consent of parties‑‑Supreme Court coming to conclusion that question of fact had been correctly decided against petitioner and declined interference. Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th November, 1982 whereby the civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed. The background is that a dispute ensued between the petitioner Punjab Province and the respondent Mian Faqir Sain, Government contractor, about some work done which was to be decided through arbitration. Every time the respondent‑contractor, but the petitioner proposed the arbitrator would not accept him. It took considerable time until the arbitration application was disposed of on mutual agreement of the parties to appoint Mr. Justice (Retired) Zakiuddin Pal to act as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. The Senior Civil Judge with the consent of the parties passed this order. Nevertheless the petitioner challenged the same by way of civil revision which was heard by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore who dismissed the same as stated above. Hence the present petition. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that it was argued before the learned Single Judge that no consent was given on the part of the petitioner and in support of this an affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Chuhan, Government pleader was placed on the record. However, the learned Judge was not satisfied with the contents of the affidavit for the reason that no mala fides A had been alleged expressly or impliedly against the Senior Civil Judge who passed the impugned order with the consent of the parties. This question of fact has been correctly decided as against the petitioner and in our view no interference is called for by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./P‑60/S Petition dismissed.