1986 PLP 1753 (MLD)

Bilal Khawaja for Plaintiffs. Ikram Ansari for Defendant. Date of hearing: 28th May, 1986. The award, dated 9‑7‑1985 made by the sole Arbitrator (Mr.Justice (Retd.) Agha Ali Haider) was filed in this Court on 18th July, 1985.

2. Notices of the award were issued to the parties on 16th March, 1986 informing them that the award has been filed in Court on 28th July, 1985 and that the Court shall proceed to pass judgment according to the award 6nlass an application was duly made under section 15, 16 or 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Notice was served on the plaintiff on 20th March, 1986. On 15‑4‑1986 the plaintiff made appearance before the Additional Registrar (OS). Thereafter, on 14th May, '1986 Advocate for the plaintiff made an application praying therein, that the time for filing objection on behalf of the plaintiff may be extended as the same could not be prepared because of the voluminous nature of the record and proceedings which took place before the learned sole. Arbitrator. Obviously the aforementioned application in law is not maintainable. The time of 30 days for making an application by the plaintiff to set aside an award of get it remitted for re‑consideration prescribed under Article 158 of the Limitation Act expired on 19‑4‑1985. However no application was filed by the plaintiff nor any application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been made. According to the well‑established law on the expiry of time prescribed by law for making application valuable rights accrued to the

3. Mr. Khawaja Bilal, however, argued that notwithstanding the fact that no objections Were filed by the plaintiff, the Court would still be entitled to consider if the award could be remitted in view of section 16 of the Arbitration Act and that the Court may refuse to make the award rule of the Court in accordance with the provisions of section 30 read with section 33 of the said Act. In order to appreciate the arguments thus advanced the learned counsel for the plaintiff on query made, submitted that the award may not be made rule of the Court for the follor.:ng reasons:‑ (i) That Mr. Mumtaz Elahi, the Resident Engineer of the defendant was also in the employment of the plaintiff and thus could not also simultaneously be in the employment of the defendant. (ii) That the findings given by the learned Arbitrator as to the covered area of the building is illegal as there is no evidence in support thereof. (iii) That the findings given by learned sole Arbitrator as to the extra works done by the plaintiff are based upon no evidence. I have considered the above objections. However, being of the opinion that the Arbitrator was the sole judge of questions of fact, the questions cannot be allowed to be raised before this Court in the absence of an application praying for setting aside of the award on for remitting it.

4. Time for making application objecting to the award being mad rule of the Court has expired. No sufficient cause has been shown ash to why the award could not be made rule of the Court. I accordingly order that the award be made rule of the Court and direct that decree in terms of the same shall follow.

5. In the circumstances, since no objections to the award have been filed, the parties are left to bear their own costs. M.Y.H . Award made rule of Court.