1999 PLP 2082 (CLC)
REHMAT ALI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIM JAN and another ‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2082 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIM JAN and another ‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2082 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2082 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2082 (CLC) (REHMAT ALI KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NASIM JAN and another ‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Allah Nawaz Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 32‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Suit on basis of Arbitration award‑‑‑Rejection of plaint‑‑‑Arbitration award was not made rule of the Court‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Award could not be enforced by filing an independent suit under S.32 of Arbitration Act, 1940, if it was not made rule of the Court. Messrs Awan Industries Ltd. v. The Executive Engineer; Lined Channel Division and another 1992 SCMR 65 rel.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Allah Nawaz Khan for Petitioner. Petitioner Rahmat Ali Khan had instituted a suit against the respondents', for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of a Flying Coach bearing Registration No.BU‑6455 in accordance with the Arbitration Award' given by Sahibzada Saifur Rehman and Saaduallah Khan and, that, therefore, the defendants were bound to hand over the registration hook of the vehicle in question alongwtth Route Permit (Para.A) and balance amount of Rs.60,000 to him. He had also prayed, for declaration that he was entitled to ply the vehicle in question in accordance with law. Additionally, a prayer was made for mandatory injunction restraining the respondents from, interfering with the plying of the vehicle in question and to act in accordance with the Arbitration Award mentioned above‑
2. The respondents appeared in the trial Court and instead of filing written statements, submitted an application before it, praying therein that the plaint be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. The trial Court directed the petitioner to file replication and the needful was done. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court (name of the Civil Judge has not been mentioned on the certified copy of the judgment) rejected the plaint under Order 7, ‑Rule II, C.P.C. by its order recorded on 13‑6‑1997.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal with the District Judge. The District Judge (Mr. Abdul Satar khan) by its detailed order dated 17‑10‑1997 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. I have also gone through the record carefully.
5. It is not denied that the Arbitration Award was given by Messrs Sahibzada Saifur Rehman and Sadullah Khan who were both appointed by the parties to the suit. It is also not denied that the said Award was not made Rule of the Court, for reasons best known to the parties alone. Needless to mention that if the Arbitration Award is not made the rule of the Court then in that case it cannot be enforced by filing an independent suit under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. If an authority is needed, I am supported by the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Awan Industries Ltd. v. The Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Division and another reported in 1992 SCMR 65 wherein it was held.:‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 32‑‑‑Bar to suit contesting arbitration agreement or award‑‑‑After coming into force of Arbitration Act, 1940, remedy of enforcing award by a suit was taken away by S.32 of the Act‑‑‑First part of S.32 of the Arbitration Act precludes filing of suit for decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, while second part of the section prevents setting aside of arbitration agreement or award or modifying the same except as provided in the Act. " In view of the above this revision petition does not merit consideration and is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./64‑P Petition dismissed.