1989 PLP 2010 (MLD)

P L D 1967 Kar. 508 ref. S. Mazhar Imam for Applicant. This revision petition from decree is at the instance of defendant and it arises out of proceedings under the Arbitration Act. Prior to the commencement of arbitration proceedings, Plot No.G-75/2, Malir Colony was leased out to the applicant which was originally allotted to one Mahmood Baig from whom it was transferred in the name of the applicant. Parties inter se are brothers and sisters and it is alleged that originally Mst. Sitara Begum, their mother, was the allottee of the disputed quarter and on her death disputed quarter devolved on her legal heirs according to Muhammadan Law. Therefore, the parties had referred the dispute to three arbitrators namely Maulana Zaheer Ali, Qazi Waheed and Imtiaz Ahmad. The arbitrators after hearing the parties and considering the evidence adduced by the parties passed an award and declared the" respective shares of the respective parties. - On 16-12-1984 IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East) after hearing the parties rejected the objections filed by the applicant and made award rule of the Court. In the first appeal the learned Additional District Judge considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the learned Senior Civil Judge. Being aggrieved by the decree of the appellate Court, the defendant has preferred this Revision Application. I have heard Mr. Mazhar Imam in support of this revision, who reagitated the same arguments before me. I will dispose of contentions 1 to VI together as they are interconnected with each other. It is an admitted position that the dispute relates to quarter No.G-75/2, Malir Colony, Karachi. It is also an admitted position that the dispute was referred to three. arbitrators by the parties including the applicant. At no stage the applicant raised any objection as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. All the time he took a chance to get an award in his favour. It is not the case of the applicant himself that at any tune he took such objection. The contention of the applicant before the learned Senior Civil Judge was that no consent was obtained from him for referring the dispute to the arbitrators and he did not sign documents. This contention was not accepted by the learned Senior Civil Judge. In my opinion the learned Senior Civil Judge was right in overruling this contention: I am of the view that if a party allowed arbitrators to proceed with the reference without objecting to their jurisdiction or competence, it would not be subsequently heard to say that the award should be set aside on the ground that arbitrators cannot decide the dispute in question. In the instant case, it is not the case of any party that the arbitration reference is invalid. I have already pointed out that the applicant at no time objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, on the other hand, he submitted to their jurisdiction, led evidence and took a chance to get an award in his favour. In these circumstances he is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the arbitrators after the award went against him. The Courts below rightly held that the award could not be set aside for want of jurisdiction of the arbitrators. There is also no force at all in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the arbitrators misconducted themselves. As I have already pointed out, the arbitrators were appointed by consent of the parties. The parties appeared, before the arbitrators, led evidence and took a chance to get an award B in their favour. This contention was not pressed before the learned Civil Judge. In the instant case it is noticed that the allegations made by the applicant against one of the arbitrators are of factual nature. They relate of the acts of misconduct committed by the arbitrator. The applicant did not care to produce any evidence to substantiate the allegations. The last contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the award has not been registered, as such the Court is precluded from entertaining the award and dealing with under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act upon the ground that it is not' a registered document though it relates to immovable property of the value of more than Rs.100. This is a private arbitrations. I am of the view that even in a private arbitration the proceedings are subject to control of the Court under the provisions of the Arbitration Act at all stages and the award to be enforceable has to be made a rule of the Court. This question was considered by a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan in the case reported as PLD 1967 Kar. 508 in which the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion after giving cogent reasons that the bar is now removed. The document, therefore, becomes admissible. That being so, once it is filed in Court, it becomes the duty of the Court to deal with it' under the provisions of the Arbitration Act. I am in respectful agreement with the decision and as such I am of the opinion that the learned appellate Court rightly held that the Courts are not precluded from dealing with the award under Section 17 of. the Arbitration Act. For the above reasons I found no force in the above revision application which was consequently dismissed in limine by me by my short order dated 11.-1 1988 passed on the conclusion of the arguments. H.B.T./M-816/K Revision dismissed.