1. ' FAISAL ARAB, J.--- In the year 1963, the appellant obtained on lease a piece of 754 acres of land in Hyderabad Cantonment area for quarrying purposes. The lease was executed by Military Estate Officer for a period of four years commencing from 1963 to 1967. It is the case of the appellant that in the year 1965 the contractor of Pak. P.W.D., Hyderabad started using appellant's quarried material from the leased land for construction of the road, which was being laid for the Airport. The appellant claimed damages for such unauthorized use of his leased land. In order to resolve the controversy, the Chief Engineer of Pak P.W.D. In the year 1995 appointed Mr. S.A. Nizami as Sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator issued notices to Pak P.W.D., Military Estate Officer and Civil Aviation Authority. On 30-8-1995 the Sole Arbitrator gave his award in favour of the appellant. The said award was filed in this Court and was registered as Suit No,896 of 1996.
2. ' Vide judgment and decree dated 20-8-1998 passed by the Single Judge, the award was made rule of the Court. When respondent No,1 i,e, Ministry of Defect became aware of the judgment and decree, dated 20-8-1998, it challenged the same under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, on the ground that the award was made rule of the Court without any notice to it. In the application it was also pleaded that the Ministry of Defence can only be sued through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Pak Secretariat, Rawalpindi but by playing fraud, Ministry of Defence was wrongly described as "Ministry of Defence in the Military Lands and Cantonment, Military Estate Office, Hyderabad, Sindh", which is neither its correct description nor the said ministry is located in Hyderabad.
3. ' The application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was allowed vide order, dated 25-4-2005 whereby the learned Single Judge instead of setting aside the judgment and decree went a step further and set aside the award itself. The appellant in whose favour award was made rule of the Court has impugned the order of the Single Judge, dated 25-4-2005 in the present appeal.
4. ' Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned counsel for the appellant first argued that the very application filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. By respondent No,1 was not maintainable and the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the same. He submitted that no such application is maintainable in arbitration mattes.
5. ' When any order, judgment or decree is obtained by playing IA fraud, misrepresentation or such order, judgment or decree is passed by a Court having no jurisdiction, any person aggrieved by it has inherent right to challenge it and get it recalled as an aggrieved person cannot be left without any remedy. Prior to the insertion of section 12(2) in the Civil Procedure Code, such remedy was resorted to by filing a separate suit. After the incorporation of section 12(2) in Civil Procedure Code, no other recourse was left with an aggrieved person, but to make an application under section 12(2), C.P.C., to the Court, which passed the final order. The object of bringing about such a procedural change was to save the parties from the ordeal of a regular trial of a suit, which takes years to be decided. In order to decide such controversies with necessary dispatch, the expeditious mode of moving application under section 12(2), C.P.C., was adopted. When one of the objects to get the matter resolved through arbitration is expeditious disposal of the controversy, then in such matters relegating an aggrieved person to resort to the cumbersome remedy of filing a separate suit, would defeat this very object. One other purpose to incorporate section 12(2), C.P.C., was to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
6. ' A plain reading of section 17 of the Arbitration Act also indicates, that the order making an award rule of the Court is to be treated as judgment, which is then followed by a decree. The judgment and decree passed in arbitration suit, thus, becomes judgment and decree passed by a Civil Court.
7. Section 41 of the Arbitration Act provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to all proceedings before the Court, and to all appeals subject to the provisions of Arbitration Act. Therefore, except for the situations envisaged under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to arbitration proceedings. When none of the provisions of the Arbitration Act prohibits the Court from dealing with cases where validity of an order, judgment or decree is challenged on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction, then there remains no justification not to apply the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C., in arbitration suits. If the argument of Mr. Kamal Azfar with regard to the maintainability of application under section 12(2), C.P.C., in arbitration matters is accepted, then it would defeat the very object of the law and would relegate an aggrieved person to the cumbersome procedure of filing separate suit.
8. ' It may also be pointed out that section 12(2),. C.P.C., was incorporated in recognition of the principle that every Court or Tribunal must possess inherent Jurisdiction to recall or review its own order, which has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or was obtained when the Court or Tribunal did not possess the jurisdiction to decide a matter. Section 12(2), C.P.C_ thus, empowers the Court to invalidate its own orders, judgments or decrees, which have been obtained by playing fraud, misrepresentation or the Court did not possess jurisdiction to decide the matter in the first place. Even in cases in which Civil Procedure Code is not applicable, the principles laid ,down in section 12(2), C.P.C., are applied by Courts and Tribunals such as in constitution petitions and rent cases etc. Therefore, the argument that the provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C. Cannot be made applicable to decrees arising in arbitration matters is misconceived.
9. ' Mr. Kamal Azfar next argued that in the impugned order, dated 25-4-2005, the learned Single Judge set aside the decree though at best the Single Judge could have set aside the judgment and decree only and this error by itself warrants setting aside of the impugned order. To this extent Mr. Kamal Azfar is right. Under sections 15, 16 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, the Court has the power to remit, set aside, or make an award rule of the Court. While deciding application under section 12(2), C.P.C. If the Court finds that the judgment and decree was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or the Court did not possess the jurisdiction, then the judgment and decree ought to have been set aside and not the award itself. The Court has to then again hear objections to the award and thereafter decide whether to remit, set aside or make the award rule of the Court.
10. The learned Single Judge in the present case instead of setting aside the decree went a step further and set aside the award which was not warranted in law and the circumstances of the case.
11. ' Mr. Kamal Azfar then argued that respondent No,1 was duly served and it chose not to contest the proceedings and therefore, there was no occasion to move application under section 12(2),C . P. C .
12. ' In order to ascertain whether respondent No,1(i) was duly served or not, we sent for the suit file in order to examine the Registrar's diaries and notices issued to the parties. In the suit respondent No,1 has been described as "Ministry of Defence in the Military Lands and Cantonment, Military Estate Office, Hyderabad, Sindh". The diary sheet of Additional Registrar, dated 21-10-1996 shows that notices were issued to respondent No,1 as well as respondent No,2 through District Judge, Hyderabad, but the same were not returned by District Judge and therefore, the Additional Registrar in his diary, dated 21-10-1996 stated "Award notice issued to the Claimant and respondents Nos.1 and 2 through District Judge, Hyderabad, but not returned served or unserved".
13. In spit of the fact that notice issued to respondent No,1 was not returned served, the Additional Registrar on the very same day in his diary stated "none present on behalf of respondent No,1" and adjourned the matter to 11-12-1996. On the next date 11-12-1996, the Additional Registrar's diary shows that he assumed that respondent No,1 was already served whereas the previous diary clearly showed that the District Judge, Hyderabad never reported back the service or otherwise of the notices. In fact we find a copy of a notice which was sent to Civil Aviation Authority through bailiff. This notice shows that Civil Aviation Authority was served on 16-10-1996. There is nothing on record to indicate that respondent No,1 even at the incorrect address of Hyderabad was served.
14. Thus, the Additional Registrar, based on his erroneous assumption that respondent No,1 has been duly served, declared it to be served and on such erroneous assumption the learned Single Judge proceeded with the matter and passed judgment and decree dated 20-8-1998 whereby the award was made rule of the Court. When the Ministry of Defence became aware of the passage of the judgment and decree dated 20-8-1998, it moved the application under section 12(2), C . P. C .
15. ' From the above facts it is clear that the Ministry of Defence was wrongly described and no notice was issued to Ministry of Defence at its proper address which at that time was located at Rawalpindi. In view of the above discussion, we modify the impugned order dated 25-4-2005. The operative part of the impugned order contained in paragraph 14 is substituted to the effect that the judgment and decree dated 20-8-1996 is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Single Judge for fresh hearing of the application submitted by the Arbitrator under section 14(2) and application under section 17 submitted by the appellant. The title of the applications shall be suitably amended so as to describe respondent No,1 properly. Notices shall be served on all the parties providing opportunity to tile objections. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge shall hear the objections and pass any order envisaged under the provisions of sections 15, 16 or 17 of the Arbitration Act.
16. ' This appeal is disposed off in the above terms with no order as to costs.