' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-This petition is directed against the judgment dated 31-7-1997 of the Lahore High Court through which appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the trial Court of making the award rule of the Court has been dismissed.
2. There was admittedly contract between the parties about the selling of ticket etc. On Lahore, Faisalabad route. An agreement was executed between the parties which was to be effective from 1-8-1992 for a period of two years extendable at the option of the parties for one year.
3. A dispute arose between the parties which resulted in filing of a suit by the respondent before the Civil Court. During pendency of thesuit, the petitioner invoked Arbitration clause in the agreement and referred the dispute to the nominated arbitrator namely General Manager, Pakistan Railways as sole Arbitrator. Claim was filed by the petitioner which was opposed by the respondent, who filed countercalim. The Arbitrator after framing as many as eight issues, recorded evidence of the parties, delivered award and recorded findings that both the parties had failed to perform their reciprocal obligations under the agreement and both of them did not implement the agreement and the trains were late. It was held that respondents should pay an amount of Rs,10 lacs to the Railway Department and Railway should release the security in the form of defence certificate etc. To the respondents. The respondent had paid an amount of Rs,6.6 Crores against an amount of Rs,5.5 Crores which was earned by the Railway in the year prior to the privatization of the route.
4. The petitioner in the first instance filed an application formaking the award rule of the Court, which was withdrawn inter alia on the ground that the Chief Manager was not competent to represent the petitioner. After this, the petitioner filed petition for setting aside the award, which was dismissed by the Trial Court and award was made rule of the Court. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 31-7-1997 against which leave is sought.
5. It is manifest from the impugned judgment of the High Court that learned counsel for the petitioner raised objections against the award on merits by arguing that the claim filed by the petitioner before the Arbitrator had been fully proved by evidence and the findings of the Arbitrator to the contrary were not correct.
6. These arguments were rightly repelled by the learned Judge of the High Court by observing that the award could be challenged only on the grounds mentioned in section 30 of the Arbitration Act i.e, if the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings and not on merits, for the Court while hearing objections against the award could not sit as a Court of appeal against the award and interfere with it on merits.
7. We have gone through the objection petition filed by the petitioner against the award and find that all the objections substantially relate to the merits of the case with the insistence that the claim before the Arbitrator had been proved by evidence and findings on merits were not correct.
No substantial grounds with precision, and particular allegations were pleaded which could be construed to be misconduct by the Arbitrator or the proceedings.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Arbitrator did not record reasons for passing award.
9. We have gone through the award and find that each issue has been discussed under separate head and findings recorded after consideration of the evidence of the parties, therefore, the argument is based on misconception and against the record.
10. The impugned judgment of the High Court is perfectly in accordance with law and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed, .