1. ' SYED TAHIR ALI SHAH, J.--- Petitioner Ali Gohar has knocked the door of this Court through petition for leave to appeal against the order retuned by the Chief Court Northern Areas dated 8-6-2007, whereby the Single Bench of the Chief Court N.As, has set aside the orders/judgments passed by the two Courts holding these without jurisdiction, by accepting the revision petition.
2. ' Facts in brief giving rise to the instant litigation are that Yousuf Ali present respondent filed a suit for declaration/permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Gilgit over a dispute of Water Mill.
3. ' While the proceedings were in progress the parties on 15-9-1998, submitted a joint application to the trial Judge praying to refer the matter for arbitrator decision. The learned Judge granted the application and case referred to the above named arbitrators. After making the necessary inquiries arbitrators filed their award on 29-9-1998, in the Court. Not satisfied with the award so made, the plaintiff Yousuf Ali filed an objection against the award before the trial Court but on 1-7- 2000 the learned trial Judge proceeded under Order XVII, rule 3 of C.P.C. Debarring the objector from producing evidence and passed a decree dismissing the objection petition. The relevant portion of the decree is reproduced.
4. "Award dated 26-9-1998 attested and objections dated 14-11-1998, of plaintiff to award dismissed finding not proved. Suit of plaintiff partly decreed in terms of award."
5. ' Record speaks that none of the parties challenged the decree so passed and resultantly it attained finality.
6. ' Defendant/petitioner believing himself to be a decree holder filed execution application on 11-9- 2004, which was challenged through objection on 29-11-2005. The learned Civil Judge Nagar dismissing objection ordered execution of the decree, the gist of which is reproduced below:--- " The judgment-debtor is hereby ordered to deliver the possession to the decree holder for a year, the spending of Rs,60/70 thousand is not proved and if any of the party spend any money upon renovation during their terms of possession the other party must not be responsible for the maintenance of Mill Stone the person at the time in possession is responsible two years arrears must also be given to the respondent/decree holder. File be consigned to record after completion."
7. ' On 12-6-2006, the learned executing Court passed another order which runs as under:--- "Reader's report perused. Parties present. Thus A.C. Nagar is directed to deliver the possession of Water Mill and report of delivery be submitted to the Court, judgment-debtor is directed to deliver the two years arrears directly to decree-holder. Put up on 3-7-2006 compliance."
8. ' Aggrieved with order referred above plaintiff Yousuf Ali filed an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit challenging orders dated 12-6-2006, 29-1-2005 and 22-5-2006 simultaneously. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit vide his order dated 14-12-2006, dismissed the appeal holding the same frivolous and meritless.
9. ' Not contended with the findings so returned Yousuf All plaintiff judgment debtor challenged the said finding before the Chief Court N.As, on 28-12-2006.
10. ' The learned Single Bench of the Chief Court after hearing the parties allowed the revision petition and set aside the findings/orders of the two lower Courts. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal.
11. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record minutely with their able assistance.
12. ' The hard luck of the parties starts on 1-7-2000 when the learned trial Judge instead of making the award the rule of the Court granted a partial decree in favour of the plaintiff. The legal and proper way for the learned Judge, was to make the award as rule of the Court and pass a decree in terms of the award instead to be specific for the plaintiff. The award speaks that the arbitrators have given equal rights to the parties over the Water Mill in dispute and had not given a decision in favour of the plaintiff in particular. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner without applying his mind and going through the order passed on 1-7-2000 filed in execution petition which in the existence., of order 1-7-2000 was not available to him unless rectified or corrected. Since the award has attained finality we would not discuss the merits of the case as it would a futile exercise.
13. The Additional District and Sessions Judge Gilgit it as appears from the record also failed to apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and law regarding the matter in question. The learned member of the Chief Court though rightly commented on the findings of the two lower Courts towards their failure to apply their judicial minds while making a decision of the matter in dispute has too failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under section 151, C.P.C. Courts are not' expected to proceed on the sweet will of the parties or the discretion of the respective counsel.
14. Once the Court comes to a conclusion a judicial order must become towards irrespective of the wishes and willingness of the parties or their counsel. The second to last paragraph of the judgment reveals that the learned Judge was clear in his mind that the matter should be remitted back to the trial Court for adjudication treating the execution petition as a suit but surprisingly on the refusal of the concerned counsel to concede the proposal dismissed the two orders of the respective subordinate Courts by allowing the revision petition.
15. 'Since the award, whatever it may be, has attained finality as none of the parties has challenged the same in either forum. The order passed on 1-7-2000 lacks reasoning and absence of application of judicial mind of the trial Judge which comes under the definition of Act of The Court for which. The concerned parties have no contribution. When the matter falls under the definition of the Act of the Court the parties should not be penalized as no person should suffer for act or comission of Court and act of court should not prejudice any one. The Courts have ample power under section 151, C.P.C. To correct its own mistakes for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.
16. ' The upshot of the discussion is that the order passed on 8-6-2007, of the Chief Court 14-12-2006, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Gilgit, 12-6-2006, 1-7-2000 and 29-11-2005, of the trial Courts being irrational and erroneous are set aside. For the ends of justice the case is remitted back to Civil Judge, Nagar with the direction to proceed to pass a decree in terms of the award keeping in view the provisions contained in section 151 C.P.C. . No order as to costs.