1998 PLP 110 (SCMR)

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.

Province of Punjab and two functionaries of Punjab Public Health Engineering Department seek leave to appeal against the judgment/order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, dated 23-4-1996 dismissing their revision petition (C.R. No.691-L of 1996) directed against the orders of the Courts below whereby award of the Arbitrators was made rule of the Court and a decree in terms thereof was passed against them.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition briefly are that the respondent being an approved Contractor was granted contract by the petitioners for the construction of over-head reservoir of water and 2-D type quarters. During the execution of that contract, a dispute arose between the parties which was ultimately referred to two Arbitrators appointed with the consent of the parties. The Arbitrators gave their award on 31-3-1990 holding that a sum of Rs.1,58,420 was payable by the petitioners to the respondent/Contractor. The respondent submitted an application claiming interest at the rate of 2 % above the prevailing bank rate on the amount awarded by the Arbitrators. Petitioners, however, filed time-barred objections to the award on 19-6-1990. Learned trial Court framed necessary issues and called upon the petitioners to produce evidence in support of their objections. It appears that the petitioners did not produce any evidence and in fact failed to prosecute their objections with the result that they were proceeded against ex parte and the award of the Arbitrators was made rule of the Court on 31-7-1993 and a decree was passed in terms thereof. Learned trial Court also awarded interest*at the rate of 2 per cent above the bank rate in favour of the respondent from the date of the announcement of award till the realisation of the amount.

3. Petitioners preferred an appeal against the trial Court's decree but the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide order dated 13-9-1995 holding that "The issues were framed on 30-2-1991. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the appellants. The appellants did not produce any witness till 5-4-1993 when they disappeared and were proceeded ex parte. Learned Civil Judge finally decided the case on 31-7-1993. The appellants also failed to file objections within time. The award was filed on 31-3-1990 and objections were filed on 19-6-1990 after 30 days of the filing of objection. In the circumstances there is no force in the appeal and the same is dismissed." Petitioners then brought the matter in the High Court but with no better result as their revision petition, as stated above, was dismissed in limine upholding the findings of the Court below with the observation that the petitioners not only failed to produce any evidence in the case but even absented themselves with the result they were proceeded against ex parte. The learned Judge observed that the trial Court could have dismissed the objection-petitions for non-prosecution but this was not done and instead it proceeded to decide the case on merits. It was also noted by the learned Judge that the objections to the award were not filed by the petitioners within the time prescribed by law yet the learned trial Court considered them on merits and repelled them. Petitioners failed to substantiate the misconduct levelled against the Arbitrator. It was accordingly held that the learned .Courts below did not commit any irregularity amounting to illegality in making the award rule of the Court or allowing the interest at the rate of 2 % above the bank rate. No interference under section 115 C.P.C. was, therefore, called for.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He was unable to controvert aforenoted findings. recorded by the Courts below viz that the objections to the award were not filed by the petitioners within time prescribed by law and that they led no evidence to substantiate their objections and instead disappeared from the scene with the result that they were proceeded against the ex parte. Learned Courts below have, therefore, rightly held that the objections filed by the petitioners beyond the prescribed limitation period could have been rejected on that short ground and/or the objection petition could have been dismissed for non-prosecution. Learned trial Court, however, proceeded to give determination on merits. In the circumstances, the learned Judge in the High Court was right in holding that the Courts below did not commit any illegality in making the award rule of the Court and awarding the interest at the rate of 2 per cent. above the bank rate and as such no case was made out for interference in revisional jurisdiction.

5. Upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused. A.A./P-2/SC Leave refused