2003 PLP 161 (CLC)

Instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment dated 26‑6‑2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Bahawalnagar whereby he has dismissed the appeal on the statement of referee, appointed with the consent of the parties.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiff/respondent Mst. Khalida Bibi filed a suit for recovery of dower amounting to Rs.50,000 against Muhammad Tahir/defendant/petitioner. She also filed another suit for the recovery of dowry articles as well as a third suit for dissolution of marriage. All the three suits were consolidated and were decreed vide judgment, dated 13‑4‑2001 passed by the Judge, Family. Court, Minchanabad. The defendant/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree to the extent of recovery of dower filed an appeal.

3. During the pendency of appeal both the parties agreed to appoint Haji Muhammad Hussain Chohan as a referee for the fins, adjudication of dispute referred above. The said referee submitted his report on 11‑6‑2001, on the basis of which, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal of the defendant/petitioner vide a judgment, dated 26‑6‑2001. The defendant/petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed the instant writ petition.

4. Preliminary arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. Stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court suffers from various defects. His first contention is that Appellate Court has not recorded the statement of said referee but has simply relied upon his report. His other objection is that even the report submitted by the referee does not fall within the ambit of the report of a referee, but it amounts to an award of the Arbitrator. He next argued that before the judgment could be announced, an application was moved on 22‑6‑2001 for rejecting the report of the referee but the learned Additional District Judge has not made any reference to said application as is evident from the judgment dated 26‑6‑2001. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon PLD 1970 SC 241 and 331 respectively and PLD 1978 Lah. 672 and prayed that writ petition be admitted for hearing.

6. Admittedly the plaintiff/respondent filed the aforementioned suits against the defendant/petitioner which were decreed by the trial Court vide a consolidated judgment and decree dated 13‑4‑2001. The said judgment relating to the recovery of dower as well as dowry, were assailed by the defendant/petitioner in the Appellate Court. It is fact that during the pendency of appeals, both the parties agreed to appoint Haji Muhammad Hussain Chohan as their sole referee ride their statements had agreed to abide by the decision 6‑f the referee. It is also fact that the referee submitted his report in the Court on 11‑6‑2001. There is no doubt that on 22‑6‑2001 an application was filed by the defendant/petitioner requesting the Court to reject ‑the report of the referee on the ground that he had not appeared in the Court in person to record his statement and has colluded with the other party.

7. Admittedly both the parties appointed Haji Muhammad Hussain Chohan as referee and agreed to abide by his decision. He submitted his report in the Court on 11‑6‑2001 but no objection was raised by the defendant/petitioner. It is only on 22‑6‑2000 that defendant/petitioner filed the application for rejecting his report. The mere fact that report had been submitted against the defendant/petitioner gave a cause of grievance to move such application, as referred above. The referee has given his report as per direction of the Court and as such it can very easily be considered to be a statement by the referee. It is not obligatory on the referee to appear in the Court and to make statement. He can give his decision either by making a statement or by tendering it in writing. The referee chose to submit his decision in the form of report, which has been brought on record. The report itself reveals that he has based his decision on his own knowledge and investigation. This is what law requires from a referee to do. The decision of the referee under' these circumstances, by no means can be considered a decision of an Arbitrator. Reliance is placed upon Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan and others 1990 SCMR 763 and Wajid Ali and others v. Liaqat Ali .and others 2000 YLR 2484.

8. Keeping in view the facts stated above, there is no illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court, as such writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-1303/L Petition dismissed.