' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.-- ' The petitioner viz: Province of the Punjab and the Executive Engineer, Provincial Building Division, Kasur impugn the decree of the learned trial Court dated 7-12-2001, whereby an arbitration award filed in Court on 27-11-2001 'was made rule of the Court, and the appellate decree dated 26-3-2003, whereby the decree of the learned trial Court was affirmed.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. The respondent, who is a contractor, had a dispute with the petitioners in relation to a civil works contract awarded to him. The dispute was referred to arbitration with the intervention of the Court, upon an application made by the respondent. The award was filed in Court on 27-11-2001. The record does not show that notice of the making and signing of the award was given to the petitioners under section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act. The Court also did not give notice to the. Parties under section 14(2) of the s&id Act but adjourned the case to the following day for objections. On that date, i-e. 28-11-2001, statements bf the Assistant District Attorney and the S.D..O., Building Division, Kasur were recorded to the effect that the petitioners do not wish to file objections to the award. Based on the statements, the above-referred decree was passed on 7-12-2001. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforesaid decree but the same has been dismissed, by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 26-3-2003.
The petitioners impugn the decrees of the learned Courts below.
3. According to the learned Law Officer,, the decree, dated 7-12-2001 was without jurisdiction, firstly, because no notice as required under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act had been given to the petitioners and, secondly, because the S.D.O. And A.D.A. Did not have the authority to make the statements recorded on 28-11-2001. If this submission is indeed correct, then the impugned decrees will have to be set aside.
4. Since the matter as to the authority of the S.D.O. And the A.D.A. Arose only during the appeal, the judgment of the learned appellate Court on this issue is to be seen. In paragraph-18 of its judgment the learned appellate Court has proceeded on the premise that the S.D.O. And the A.D.A. Had been appearing in the Court had been deputed by the appellants to pursue the case. On this basis it was held that it was not open to the petitioners to question the authority of these two functionaries.
This finding is based on a misconception. As noted above, the matter was referred to arbitration on the application of the respondent. Only at that stage the S.D.O. And the A.D.A. Appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Those proceedings in effect came to an end when the dispute between the parties was referred to arbitration. It is clear that the appearance of the S.D.O. And the A.D.A. In Court prior to the date on which the matter was referred to arbitration has no relevance in the present case.
5. The arbitration award was filed in Court on 27-11-2001. Thereafter it had to be dealt with as required under section 14, of 'the Arbitration. Act. The proceedings subsequent to the filing of the award were qualitatively and in substance different from the proceedings which had ended with the acceptance of the respondent's application seeking a reference to arbitration. In the circumstances, the finding of the learned appellate Court that because the S.D.O. And the A.D.A.
Had been appearing on behalf of the petitioners prior to the date on which the reference was made, also had authority to record statements in relation to the award, cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the respondent followed the reasoning which prevailed with the. Learned appellate Court and insisted that the S.D.O. And the A.D.A. Were, also otherwise vested with authority to represent the petitioners Province and the Executive Engineer in the proceedings taken by the Court after the filing of the award. He could not, however, show to the Court any notification, statutory instrument or other legal basis from which it can be determined that the S.D.O. Or the A.D.A. Had a general authority to act on behalf of the petitioners and to make concessional statements like the one recorded on 28-11-2001.
6. It follows from the foregoing discussion that in the post award proceedings that A.D.A. And the S.D.O. Did not have the requisite authority and consequently the statements made by them on 28- 11-2001 could not bind the petitioners. This is particularly so, considering that there is no evidence of a notice issued to the petitioners by the arbitrators under section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act and nor is there any notice of the filing of the award given to the petitioners by the learned trial Court as required by section 14(2) of the said Act. In these circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioners did not have the knowledge that the award had been made and filed in Court. It follows, therefore, that the petitioners could not have made or, authorized the making of a statement that they had no objections to the award.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decree dated 7-12-2001 and the appellate decree dated 26-3-2003 are set aside. The proceedings before the learned trial Court shall stand restored. The learned Court shall issue notice to the parties as required by section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act and shall thereafter proceed in the matter as required by law.
8. This petition is allowed in the above terms.