2012 PLP 488 (CLD)

CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this civil revision are that the suit for possession through pre-emption was dismissed by the learned trial court. The appeal was preferred thereagainst. During the pendency of the appeal, the parties agreed to get the issue resolved through an arbitrator. It was also agreed that the decision of the arbitrator, whatsoever, will be accepted by both sides and the award will be made rule of the court. Accordingly, the arbitrator was appointed through the court. The arbitrator announced his award on 3-12-1998 halving the disputed property between the petitioner and the respondent but without specifying as to which part of the land, the parties will get. Against the award, the objection petition was filed by the respondent. The learned first appellate court dismissed the objection petition, made the award rule of the court and disposed of the appeal. The order of the learned first appellate court was challenged in Civil Revision No.1841 of 1999 wherein this Court observed that the judgment impugned suffered from legal infirmity and material irregularity and remanded the case to the learned first appellate court with the direction to decide the objection petition filed by the respondent in accordance with law. After remand, the learned first appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 13-7-2004 allowed the objection petition holding that the award made by the arbitrator lacks reasons and is, therefore, based on misconduct which has been assailed by the petitioner through this civil revision.

2. The contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are that the learned first appellate court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction and illegally accepted the objection petition; that the three ingredients to set aside the award of section 30 of the Arbitration Act have not been taken into consideration by the learned lower court and that there is no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator, therefore, the civil revision in hand be accepted and the impugned judgment and decree be set aside.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has vigorously opposed this civil revision and fully supported the impugned judgment.

4. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard. I have also perused the record as well as the award in dispute.

5. It is ex facie clear from bare perusal of the award that the requirements of law have not been met by the arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, there is no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. However, on query, he frankly admits that the arbitrator has not given any reason while making the award. Furthermore, the record shows that neither the parties were heard nor evidence was recorded. The arbitrator has even failed to offer any reason for bisecting the disputed property between the parties. He has also not mentioned as to which pieces of disputed land will be given to the petitioner and the respondent. In the circumstances, the arbitrator has failed to fulfil the requirements of law which falls within the ambit of "misconduct". Section 30 of the Act ibid clearly provides that the misconduct is the main ground on the basis of which an award can be set aside. The award also shows that some addition has been made at its end which might be result of some afterthought. Under the law, the arbitrator was bound to give cogent reasons for making the award. Non-mentioning of any reason and adding new lines itself depicts that the award is against the norms of justice. The award in its present form tantamounts to glaring misconduct and is not sustainable in the eye of law. Furthermore, the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate court is well-reasoned. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment calling for interference by this Court.

6. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision has no merit, hence dismissed. S.A.K./R-53/L Revision dismissed.