1990 PLP 1595 (SCMR)

M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Respondents: Ex parte. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1990. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑ This appeal with the leave of the Court has been filed by the appellant against respondent No.2 for the recovery of Rs.40,500 arising out of a contract between the parties for the sale/purchase of cotton. The Arbitration Board of Market Committee, Khanewal resolved the dispute in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978. A notice was issued to the respondent No.2. He was duly served and appeared before the Arbitration Board but subsequently defaulted in appearance. The Arbitration Board gave a decision in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The decision was challenged by respondent No.2 through a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 10‑12‑1983. The respondent No.2 filed an Intra‑Court Appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chamber. The appeal was accepted on the ground that the dispute was between two dealers for which jurisdiction of the Board of Arbitrators had been specifically excluded under section 24 of the Ordinance and consequently the Market Committee, Khanewal had no jurisdiction in the matter.

2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider:‑‑

(i) that Intra‑Court Appeal was heard by two learned Judges but the judgment has been signed by only one of them; (ii) relationship between the parties was that of a dealer and a grower; and (iii) the dispute between the parties arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Khanewal.

3. The perusal of the record shows that the appeal was signed by the two learned Judges of the High Court. Therefore, the first ground argued by the learned counsel has no force.

4. According to section 24 of the aforesaid Ordinance, jurisdiction of the Arbitrator Board is ousted in case there is a dispute between the dealers in the other cases jurisdiction of the Arbitrator Board is not ousted.

5. The learned counsel has referred to the document including the agreement executed between appellant and the respondent to show that the appellant was not a dealer and as such the jurisdiction was not ousted. The appellant has stated in his application that he is a Zamindar and grower within section 2(g) of Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978. According to the learned counsel there was sufficient material to prove that the respondent No.2 was also a grower He contended that the High Court misread and misconstrued the documents on record, as such the Arbitration Board had the jurisdiction. We have examined the documents but would not make any comment on them. The objection of jurisdiction was not raised before the Board. The Board had not adverted to the question of jurisdiction. The proper body for the appraisal of these documents is the Arbitration Board. The opinion of the Board on this point is not before us. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case we would deem it necessary to remand the matter to the Board of Arbitrators to determine the two questions namely:‑‑ (i) whether the Board has territorial jurisdiction over the subject‑matter of the dispute; and (ii) whether the Board has the jurisdiction to determine the dispute under section 24 of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978.

6. The appeal is accepted with no order as to costs and the case is remanded. A.A./S‑557/5 Appeal accepted.