MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- In relation to a construction contract the dispute arose between the parties, and in pursuance of an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, the matter was referred to the arbitrator, who made and pronounced his award on 2.4.1988, in which Rs. 64,00/- have been granted, as the amount due to the respondent, on account of its security amount, while Rs. 27,6000/- as the interest, from the date when the amount was payable, i.e. 6/1979 to 31.3.1988. This award was sought to be made rule of the Court, by the respondent, who moved an application under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, in pursuance of the above the award was received and opened by the Court in the presence of the parties on 6.4.1988. The Court adjourned the case for 6.6.1988, when the objections thereupon, were filed by the petitioners, which were resisted by the respondent as being barred by time. The plea of limitation has been accepted by the first Court, and the objections are dismissed. The appeal of the petitioners has also filed. Hence this revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner: by relying upon the judgment reported as Rashad Ehsa, ana others vs. Bashir Ahmad and another (PLD 1989 SC 146 at 150), contends that where the Court had itself fixed at the date for filing of the objections upon the award on 6.6.1988, such act of the Court, shall not prejudice the petitioner. It is also submitted, that the petitioners had moved an application, for the condonation of delay on account of having been misled due to the date fixed by the Court, resultantly, there was a sufficient ground for the condonation of delay, which was only three days. In the alternative, it is argued that even if the objections were not filed, yet it was the duty of the Court, to see that the award was legal'and valid, but in this case the petitioners were not given the chance by the arbitrator to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent; besides the amount of Rs. 27,600/-, has been granted as an interest, which was not permissible under the law, or the contract between the parties.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the provisions of Article 158 of the Limitation Act, a specific time has been prescribed, for the purposes of filing of the objections; the Court, has no authority and jurisdiction under the law, to extend this period of limitation, as enunciated by the judgment reported as Dr. AbdulWaris vs. Javed Hanif and others (1983 SCM R 716). However, the Court could in certain circumstances condone the delay, under section 5 of the Limitation Act, but if an application in this regard was moved, and a case for "sufficient cause" was made out. No application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, in this matter is available on the record, or even stated to have been filed, therefore, the plea of .Condonation had become irrelevant.
4. As regards the judgment reported as PLD 1989 SC 146, is concerned, it is dislin iishable on the facts involved in the present case, and is relatable to some deposit regarding the auction price, for which the time was perhaps extendable, but it is not.So with regard the extension of the period of limitation provided and prescribed for the filing of the objections under Article 158. Therefore, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the objections of the petitioners.
5. As regards the question about misconduct of the arbitrator for not providing the opportunity of the cross-examination, is concerned, this is again an allegation, which is not substantiated from the present record. As has been explained by Mr. Muhammad Shahid Piracha, counsel for the respondent, that no witness was ever examined by the claimant respondent, but only documents were tendered in evidence, therefore, the question of cross-examination does not arise, resultantly, no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator can be imputed. This position has not been rebutted by the petition has not been rebutted by the petitioners' counsel.
6. For the submission about the charge of the interest is concerned, obviously, notwithstanding the absence of the objections the Court below was duty bound to see, whether the interest has been lawfully granted by the arbitrator or otherwise, I am not convinced, that in the agreement there is any such clause, which permits the arbitrator to grant interest upoo the ,amount of security.
Though, Mr. Muhammad Shahid Piracha, Advocate, submits it to be otherwise, but when specifically questioned, he had not been able to pinpoint any clause of the nature, under which the arbitrator was permitted to grant the interest or even this could be done under any law, therefore, it is held that the arbitrator had no power to grant any interest, on the amount due, to a claimant.
Resultantly, the award to the extent of Rs. 27,600/-, granted interest to the respondent cannot be sustained. To this extent, it is modified, and by excluding such amount, the remaining award is directed to be made rule of the Court, and decree in pursuance thereof be passed. This revision stands partly allowed.
Civil .