' This single judgment will decide the present civil revision as well as the connected Civil Revision No,1634 of 1.990 as the common questions of law and facts are involved in both the revision petitions.
2. The petitioners/defendants have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, under section 115, C.P.C. Thereby challenging the order dated 21-5-1990, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, dismissed in limine the appeals filed by the petitioners thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 21-4-1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha, through which he passed a decree for recovery in favour of the respondent and against the appellants.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present revision petitions are that the respondent filed two different suits for recovery of various amounts against the petitioners in both the civil revisions, which suits were contested by the petitioners. On 21-4-1990, one Nazir Masih. Gul, purported to be a referee, appeared before the learned Civil Judge and got recorded his statement, whereby he stated that the demand of the respondents for the recovery of specific amounts is correct and, therefore, the suits to that extent may be decreed. After recording the statement of the aforesaid person, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suits for recovery against the petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 21-4-1990. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, both the petitioners, filed separate appeals against the respondents, however, the same were dismissed in lintine by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, vide order dated 21-5-1990 hence, the present revision petitions.
4. The foremost question which arises for determination is that whether the parties agreed to refer their dispute for its resolution by the so-called referee, namely, Mr. Nasir Masih Gul.
5. In support of these revision petitions the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners . Did not agree to the appointment .Of Mr. Nasir Masih Gul, as a referee, and the matter was never referred to the said person for its resolution, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, which is solely based on the statement of the said person acting as referee, is not sustainable under the law. He further submits that the learned lower Appellate Court also does not take into consideration the said material aspect of the case and, thus, erred in law. On this main ground, the judgment and decree of Civil Judge and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge have been challenged. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported judgment/order passed by both the Courts below and asserted that the concurrent findings of facts cannot be interfered by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
6. In view of the above, the only question which has arisen for determination is that whether the petitioners agreed to the appointment of Mr. Nasir Masih Gul, as referee and whether the petitioners intended, by any means, to refer his dispute to be resolved by a referee. There is neither any material on record nor the learned counsel for the respondents could point out, which will even, prima facie, go to show that the either of parties showed their intention to refer the dispute, subject-matter of the suit, to Mr. Nasir Masih Gul. No documentary evidence is on record which will indicate that the parties in fact referred their dispute to the person, who has purportedly acted as a referee. Even orders of both the Courts below also do not manifest any such agreement between the parties, whereby they consented to refer their dispute to the Arbitrator or even to the referee.
7. When a matter/dispute is to be decided by a referee it presupposes that the parties with their mutual consent/agreement have referred their specified dispute to a person, who can be named either an Arbitrator or a referee. This material fact, which confers jurisdiction upon an Arbitrator or a referee to sit over and decide the dispute between the parties is conspicuously lacking in the present proceedings. The foremost question is that whether in reality the parties intended their dispute to be resolved by the arbitration or through a person appointed as referee. Available record of the case is also silent about the appointment of a referee neither there is any application on record either from the petitioner or jointly by the parties consenting to refer their dispute to the referee.
8. The only fact which is discernible, from the available record is that the learned Civil Judge on 21- 4-1990 recorded the statement of Nazir Masih Gul, who portrayed himself as a referee, and stated that certain amounts are due, therefore, a decree may be passed. Although the said statement has been signed by the so-called referee but even the said statement has neither been signed by the petitioner nor even witnessed by him. If the said statement would have been signed by the petitioner, even then it would have been argued that he has signed the decision .Of the referee. The learned Civil Judge without mentioning about the factum of appointment of said Mr. Nasir Masih Gul, as referee hurriedly proceeded to pass a money decree against the petitioners in a mechanical manner, in complete oblivion of the record of the case and law on the subject. Even the learned Additional District Judge has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity while simply stamping the judgment of the learned Civil Judge without proper application of mind. The learned Additional District Judge has not even taken into consideration that the judgment, being relied upon him, is not applicable to the facts of the case, inasmuch as there is no consent of the parties on record for referring the matter in dispute to the referee.
Reliance of the said judgment by the learned Additional District Judge is misplaced.
9. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the basic ingredient of consensus of the parties to the suit/proceedings to refer their dispute/subject-matter of the suit to be resolved by a person named as referee, is lacking and, as such, subsequent proceedings are non-existent under the law.
10. Sargodha, and the order dated 21-5-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, have been passed illegally and with material irregularities calling for the interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the revision petitions are accepted and the aforesaid judgment/order are hereby set aside. The result would be that the suits filed by the respondents against the petitioners for the recovery of specific amount shall deem to be pending before the Civil Court and the same shall be decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, himself after framing of the issues, recording the evidence of the parties and in accordance with law.
11. As the suits appear to have been instituted in the year 1989, therefore, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, is directed to decide the suits himself within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order. There is no order as to costs.