2017 PLP 301 (YLR)
ASGHAR ALI KHAN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus JANAN and 15 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 301 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Haider Ali Khan, J |
| Parties | ASGHAR ALI KHAN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus JANAN and 15 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), (b) Administration of justice, (c) Administration of justice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 301 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Arbitration Act (X of 1940), (b) Administration of justice, (c) Administration of justice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 301 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Haider Ali Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 301 (YLR) (ASGHAR ALI KHAN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus JANAN and 15 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asghar Ali Khan for Petitioners.
- Asghar Nawaz for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 14(2)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11
Arbitrators gave award
Respondents refused to implement the said decision
Application for making award as rule of court was moved wherein petition for rejection of the same was filed which was accepted
Arbitrator had to file the award in the Court either at the request of a party or on the direction of the Court
Court would then give notice to the parties of the filing of award and thereafter it had to see whether same could be made rule of court or not
Party could not file award in the court to make the same rule of the court when award prior to getting the authentication and sanction of the court had been acted upon between the parties
When law required a thing to be done in a certain and particular manner then it should be done in that manner
Findings recorded by the courts below were convincing and elaborate
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Law favours adjudication upon merit.
When law required a thing to be done in a certain and particular manner then it should be done in that manner.
Judgment & Decree
HAIDER ALI KHAN, J.
Through instant revision petition, the petitioners have called in the question order and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bannu and that of order of the learned Civil Judge-XI, Bannu whereby the latter dismissed the application for granting rule of the Court and the former maintained the same order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that there was a dispute between the parties over agricultural land and verkha jaat. To settle the said dispute, arbitrators were appointed who after hearing the parties paying visit to the disputed site, decided the matter vide arbitration agreement dated 12.9.2012. The petitioners, after refusal from implementation of the arbitration decision by the respondents Nos.1 to 5, filed application for making the verdict of arbitrators as rule of the Court.
3. Respondents were summoned who appeared and contested the application by submitting their written reply. They also submitted an application for rejection of the plaint due to non-maintainability which was accepted and resultantly the application of petitioners for making it as rule of the Court was dismissed. Aggrieved from the said order the petitioners preferred a civil appeal before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bannu which met the same fate vide its order dated 08.7.2014, hence the present civil revision.
4. Arguments heard and file perused.
5. According to section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, after announcement of the award, it is the arbitrator who has to file the award in the Court either at the request of a party or on the direction of the Court. The Court will then give notice to the parties of the filing of award and thereafter the Court has to see whether the same could be made rule of the Court or not. The Court for the purpose of making the award rule of the Court is not required to act mechanically as if it has to affix its stamp of approval on the award without determining its legality, maintainability and the question of its executability. In the present circumstances it can be safely held that a party cannot file an award in the Court to make the same rule of the Court especially when the award prior to getting the authentication and sanction of the Court, is acted upon between the parties. No doubt law favours adjudication upon merit after exhausting the principles of natural justice but at the same time when the law requires a thing to be done in a certain and particular manner it should be done in that manner.
6. In view of the above, it is held that concurrent findings as recorded by both the learned Courts below especially of the learned appellate Court is very convincing and more elaborative which warrants no interference.
7. For the reasons discussed above, the petition being meritless is hereby dismissed. ZC/310/P Revision dismissed.