2005 PLP 1697 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 20th September, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Civil Revision No.13-D of 1989 filed by the respondents has been accepted. Concluding para. from the impugned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

"Therefore, impugned judgments are based upon serious misreading and non-reading of the evidence; ignoring the above-mentioned facts and/or the result of drawing illegal and erroneous inference, which cannot be sustained in law, therefore, by accepting this revision petition, the orders impugned of the Court below are set aside and the application of the petitioner under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, is dismissed. Costs of the litigation be awarded to the petitioner throughout."

2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners Muhammad Khan instituted an application under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") praying therein for making award dated 10th September, 1975 as rule of the Court. Respondents preferred objections under sections 30/33 of the Act which was allowed on 4th May, 1982 by the Civil Judge. Against this order predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners preferred appeal which came up for hearing on the file of Additional. District Judge, Sargodha, who on setting aside the order of the trial Court, remanded the case to trial Court vide judgment dated 13th January, 1985. On post-remand proceedings, learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 20th September, 1985, dismissed the earlier application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. Against this order predecessor-in-interest of the respondents preferred appeal which came up for hearing before the Additional District Judge, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 5th October, 1988. Against both the orders, revision petition was filed by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that two Courts below i.e. trial and Appellate Courts; after having taken into consideration the material available on record, rejected the application submitted by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents under section 30/33 of the Act, therefore, learned High Court for the first time in exercise of revisional jurisdiction had no authority to interfere in the concurrent findings of fact.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the impugned judgment carefully, we are of the opinion that learned High Court had taken into consideration all attending aspects of the case in order to ascertain as to whether on 10th September, 1975, award was announced by Muhammad Anwar, Advocate or not. It may be noted that there is no explanation available on record that on the same A day allegedly arbitration agreement was executed and award was also pronounced by the Arbitrator. Whereas on the other hand, it is not clear that how notices were issued to the parties on the same day, which were allegedly received on the same day by the respondents and thereafter arbitration proceedings were also concluded. We are of the considered opinion that learned High Court was quite justified in holding that as far as arbitration proceeding and agreement are concerned, it was a device adopted by the respondent No. l in collusion with the Arbitrator to grab the property of Muhammad who had no male issue and to get the decree on the basis thereof. Since the findings recorded by the learned High Court are based on correct appreciation of facts and law on the subject, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court, in exercise of B Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./W-8/S Leave refused.