2006 PLP 1298 (YLR)
GULRAIZ AHMAD ROHANI — Appellant Versus M. IQBAL ANJUM — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1298 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | GULRAIZ AHMAD ROHANI — Appellant Versus M. IQBAL ANJUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1298 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1298 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1298 (YLR) (GULRAIZ AHMAD ROHANI — Appellant Versus M. IQBAL ANJUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Irshad Ali Qureshi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2, O. XXIII, R.3--Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.14
Suit for recovery of amount on basis of promissory note
Application for compromise by defendant was refused by the trial Court
Matter in suit, wherein the application was filed, had been referred to arbitrators who had recorded a decision which in fact was an award for which procedure prescribed in Arbitration Act, 1940 had to be followed
Admittedly arbitration proceedings were resorted to without interference of Court therefore, there was no question of compromise under O. XXIII, R.3, C.P.C.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
The appellant feels aggrieved of order dated 2-3-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan whereby he refused to record a compromise according to the application filed by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court could not have refused to record the compromise with the simple reason that the opposite party has denied the same.
3. I have examined the certified copies of the document appended with this F.A.O., with the assistance of the learned counsel. The suit wherein the application was filed is for recovery of money under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. filed by the respondents against the appellant. Now in Ole application filed by the respondents it was stated that the matter was referred to Kamran Anjum and Sarbuland Khan, who have recorded a decision and according to that decision some amount has also been paid to the respondents and that case be decided according to the decision dated 17-9-2005.
4. Now a copy of this decision is annex-A. I have examined the same. Now it is in fact an award. It refers to the arbitration agreement dated 10-9-2005. Thereafter the reference has been explained and then is the decision. Now award provides that in case any of the parties resiled from the terms of the same, the other party shall have right to file proceedings in a Court for making an award rule of Court and the arbitrators will file the award in Court and give statement in Court accordingly.
5. Learned counsel admits that the arbitration proceedings were resorted to without interference of the Court. This being so there is no question of any compromise this is an award and though it is so written therein, even otherwise the procedure prescribed in the Arbitration Act, 1940, has to be followed and not Order XXIII, rule 3, C.P.C. The F.A.O. is dismissed in limine F.B./G-22/L Appeal dismissed