' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 31-5-2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in F.A.O. No,160 of 1997.
2. The Punjab Highway Department, awarded a contract to the respondent. A dispute arose between the parties as to the construction of flood damages (reconditioning/raising of. Renala Satgarah Road). The Chief Engineer (North) of the Punjab Highway Department appointed a panel of two Superintending Engineers of the Department as Arbitrators to adjudicate upon the dispute.
The Arbitrators gave the award which was filed in the Civil Court at Lahore which was objected to by the petitioners. Therefore, the Civil Judge, Lahore, by order dated 29-10-1991, directed the filing of award before Civil Court, Okara in whose jurisdiction the contract was carried out by the respondent. The needful was done by the respondent. The petitioners filed their reply as well as objection before the trial Court. The Civil Judge, Okara, by judgment and decree dated 7-4-1997, made the award as rule of the Court. The petitioners preferred F.A.O. No,160 of 1997, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, by the impugned judgment, dated 31-5-2001. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Arbitrators had misconducted in giving the award and that the Arbitrators were not produced before the trial Court to controvert the allegations against them. It was further contendea that the impugned: judgment was based on misreading and non-reading of material evidence ' on record. It was lastly argued that the enhanced work done by the respondent had not been approved by the competent authority for which the award had wrongly been given in respect of the claims Nos.1 and 7.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and have also gone through the available record. We find that the petitioners did not move any application for appearance of the Arbitrators in the Court' in support of the allegations of misconduct against them. Even the particulars and other necessary details of any misconduct were not given by the petitioners in their reply or the objections. The allegations of the petitioners against the Arbitrators was vague and nebulous. The Arbitrators justifiably took into consideration the letters dated 10-9-1981, 5-9-1981 and 16-10-1980 the Department while awarding the claims Nos.1, 2 and 7 to the respondent. No evidence was led to prove any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrators. It appears from the record that in terms of clauses 12 and 25 of the contract between the parties, the Engineer Incharge was empowered to make alterations or substitution in the original specifications, drawing, designs and instructions. The Engineer Incharge did not appear in support of the contention of the petitioner that the work carried out by the respondent had not been approved by him expressly or impliedly. Needless to observe that the Arbitrators were the Senior Officers of the Punjab Highway Department and had been appointed by the Chief Engineer (North), Punjab Highway Department, Lahore. The trial Court as well as the High Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact to which no exception could be taken. The learned counsel failed to point out any material misreading or non-reading of evidence on record. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.