2006 PLP 926(2) (YLR)
SHAMAS PERVAIZ — Appellant Versus SHABHIR AHMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 926(2) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Tanvir Bashir Ansari, JJ |
| Parties | SHAMAS PERVAIZ — Appellant Versus SHABHIR AHMAD and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 926(2) (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 926(2) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Tanvir Bashir Ansari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 926(2) (YLR) (SHAMAS PERVAIZ — Appellant Versus SHABHIR AHMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rai Muhammad Hussain Kharal for Respondents.
- 3. Learned counsel for respondents had defended the case.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The respondents, brought a suit under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. against the appellant, perhaps on the basis of an agreement. However, notice was issued to the appellant to file leave application which was granted. During the course of proceedings, the parties referred the matter for arbitration to one Muhammad Ajmal, Lumberdar who accordingly submitted the award dated 29-5-2003 in which he has found against the appellant and in favour of respondents. The appellant filed objections to??????????? the??????? award?? particularly??????? that?????? the proceedings have been misconducted by the Arbitrator inasmuch as in his award he has mentioned as below. It is submitted with force that there are no proceedings filed along with the award, so as to show that the Arbitrator has enquired the matter. Besides these statements were never recorded by the appellant nor any such opportunity was given to the appellant.
2. It is submitted that the learned Court below while passing the impugned judgment and decree had not adverted to the objections of the appellant and in a very sketchy and brief manner held that "the objections levelled against the award are for the sake of objections and having no intrinsic value."
3. Learned counsel for respondents had defended the case.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Obviously, the objections to the award have not been disposed of in accordance with law. The brief reference made in the impugned judgment which forms basis for discarding the objections, shows non-application of the judicial mind of the learned Court. The Court was supposed to decide the objections raised by the appellant by giving adequate reasons, but this is lacking in the present case, for the want of which, the judgment cannot be sustained which is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below to re-decide the case afresh.
5. Before parting it may be observed that today, only the C.M. is fixed, but with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main appeal is heard and hereby decided. F.M./S-238/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.