2004 PLP 1124 (SCMR)
MURATAB ALI and another — -Petitioners Versus LIAQUAT ALI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1124 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ |
| Parties | MURATAB ALI and another — -Petitioners Versus LIAQUAT ALI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1124 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1124 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Tanvir Ahmed Khan and Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1124 (SCMR) (MURATAB ALI and another — -Petitioners Versus LIAQUAT ALI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Yousaf Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-5-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No. 649 of 1999).
S.34
Stay of suit on application of a party who though arrayed as defendant in suit, but was not party to partnership agreement containing arbitration clause
Suit had rightly beers stayed and no exception could be taken to such order. Amanullah Piracha and another v. Mrs. Tasneem Baig and another 1988 M L D 1552 ref.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 11-5-1999 passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No. 649 of 1999 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment did not take into consideration the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration Act. According to him, respondent No.2 Messrs Rathore & Company was not a party to the partnership agreement, dated 31-10-1982 containing clause for making reference to the arbitration in respect of the dispute relating to the business etc. between them, therefore, the suit could not have been stayed. We are afraid the contention raised by the learned counsel is not acceptable because respondent No.1 Liaquat Ali, being a party to the partnership agreement, before submitting to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court had filed an application with the request to stay the proceedings in view of the arbitration clause is the agreement. The learned High Court after having taken into consideration the implication of section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the object for which respondent No.2 was impleaded as party observed as under:
"
6. Respondent No.2 has been impleaded as a defendant to the suit merely on the allegation that respondent No.1 used to file false, forged and fictitious tax returns through the active connivance and collusion of respondent No.2 but otherwise no decree has been sought, in the prayer of the plaint, against respondent No.2 and therefore, I am of the view that the Appellate Court has correctly held that respondent No.2 is not a necessary party to the suit and has correctly followed the rule of law laid down in Amanullah Piracha and another v. Mrs. Tasneem Baig and another 1988 MLD 1552 (DB) wherein it has been held that where a party who has been arrayed as a defendant in the suit and is riot a necessary party and is also not privy to arbitration agreement, then the provisions of section 34 of the Arbitration Act can be pressed upon." Because the application has been moved for staying the proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, therefore, notwithstanding the fact whether respondent No.2 was a party or not in terms of arbitration clause in the partnership agreement read with section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the suit has been rightly stayed and no exception can be taken against such order, therefore, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no substance. As such for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition, therefore, the same is dismissed and leave is refused. S.A.K./M-589/S Leave refused.