P L D 1984 Peshawar 121 (PLP)

The facts arising out of this revision application are pure and simple as well as very interesting and revealing. The respondent herein filed three suits bearing Nos. 301/1,65/1 and 328/1 and as during the pendency of the suits the parties wanted to refer their dispute to Arbitrators, the Court passed order is this behalf and appointed two Arbitrators, namely, Haji Said Badshah and Fazal Raziq, Advocates, Charsadda. The Arbitrators tendered their award before the Court on 24‑3‑1970 and as the parties accepted the same, it is l curious that the learned trial Judge without making the award rule of the Court directed that the record be consigned to the Record Room, vide his order dated 26.3‑1970. It is thus clear that the Court committed a legal) mistake in doing so and it appears that the trial Judge was not an experienced judicial officer. In the circumstances although the respondent had accepted the award but as the order of the learned trial Judge had suffered from the lacuna that it had not made the award rule of the Court, the respondent made encroach‑ ment upon two Kanals and three Marlas which according to the award was given to the petitioner herein. It appears that the respondent was not willing to part with the said land in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed an application before the trial Court with a prayer to implement the award. This time another civil Judge, namely, Qazi Muhammad Farooq, as he then was, took cognizance of the matter. He rightly held that the civil Court should have made the award rule of the Court and as this legal requirement was not satisfied the order of the Court to consign the record to the Record Room is a legal mistake committed by the Court from which the petitioner should not suffer. He accordingly passed a decree in terms that the award in question will be the rule of the Court, vide his order dated 6‑5‑1972 by which the respondent was aggrieved, therefore, he filed appeal to the District Court. The appeal was heard by a learned Additional District Judge and it is astonish ing that he set aside the order of the learned civil Judge dated 6‑5‑1972 and held that as there was no decree in the case as a result of the award, the said order was bad in law. His order is dated 28‑1‑1975 which is impugned by the petitioner in this revision application. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find that in support of his order the learned Additional District Judge has taken a highly superficial view of the matter. It is clear that the award which was accepted by the parties should have been made the rule of the Court by the Civil Judge but he did not meet this legal requirement. The second civil Judge on the application of the petitioner, therefore, rightly amended the H order to make the award rule of the Court. He had ample power and he rightly invoked the provisions of section 151, C. P. C. in this behalf. Clearly, the order of the learned Civil Judge was suffering from a legal mistake apparent on the face of record and as it was the act of the Court, legally there was no bar in this behalf and the learned second Civil Judge invoking the provisions of section 151, C. P. C. rightly corrected it. As a result, I set aside the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge and accepting this revision application restore the order of t dh second Civil Judge dated 6‑5‑1972. No order as to costs. Application accepted.