2002 PLP 3159 (YLR)

Muhammad Wasi Saigal v. Shaikh Rashid Ahmed and others 1988 CLC 267 ref. Malik ‑Muhammad Qasim Joyia for Appellant. Altaf‑ur‑Rehman for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th February, 2002. On 3‑2‑1991, the petitioner filed an application in the Trial Court. It was stated therein that the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 are partners; that a dispute arose and the respondent No.2 was appointed as an Arbitrator vide an agreement dated 10‑4‑1988; that vide an award dated 6‑6‑1988 the respondent No. 2 directed the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,41,548 to the petitioner; that the respondent No.1 has not paid the said amount. He prayed that the said award be made rule of the Court and decree be passed. The respondent No. 1 in his written reply objected that the application is time barred. He also raised objections claiming that respondent No.2 has mis conducted himself of the proceedings; that the petitioner himself cancelled the said award and conceded that in fact it is the petitioner who owed the money to the respondent No. 1 and in fact, several amounts were paid after the award by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner while‑ leaving a balance of Rs.3,00,000 due to the respondent No. 1 from the petitioner. Issues were framed and evidence of the parties was being recorded when the respondent No. 1 filed an application requesting that the main application be rejected as being time‑barred. A reply was filed. The learned Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application as time‑barred vide an order dated 22‑6‑1994.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the case of Muhammad Wasi Saigal v. Shaikh Rashid Ahmed and others (1988 CLC 267) argues that mere knowledge of the right is not enough and there ought to be a formal legal notice sent in registered cover by the Arbitrator to a party to start the limitation prescribed in Article 178 of the Limitation Act, 1908, running. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that in the present case, it stands established on record that not only did the Arbitrator make and publish the award in the presence of the parties but he delivered the copy of the Award against the receipt to both of them.

3. I have examined the record of the learned Courts below, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I find that the dates of the agreement of arbitration and on Award are wrongly mentioned in the said main application. The Arbitration agreement is dated 6‑4‑1988 while the Award is dated 6‑6‑1988. I also find that it has been clearly noted in the Award, Exh.2 and not denied by any of the parties that the Award was made and published in the presence of the parties and one copy each was delivered to the parties on the same date i.e. 6‑6‑1988.

4. In this view of the matter, it can hardly be said that the Arbitrator had not given a notice of the making of Award to the parties. I may state here that, under section 42 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a notice required to be given by the Arbitrator to any party can be served by delivering it to the party. No particular form of a notice has been prescribed. In the present case, the delivery of the copy of the Award itself to the, parties for all the purposes fulfills the sail legal requirement. This being so the limitation prescribed in the said Article 178 commenced on 6‑6‑1985 and the learned Trial Court has rightly held the application to be barred by time This F.A.O. is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./M‑1322/L Appeal dismissed.