1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The background for filing of the objection are that an agreement of licence was entered into between the Housing Directorate AHQ Chaklala and the plaintiff in respect of Beauty Parlour Boutique in the name of "The Woman Fashion" Shop No,1 at Falcon Complex, Faisal Karachi, for three years. The said agreement contains an arbitration clause which reads as under:--- "14. In case at any time during currency of this licence any dispute arises between the licensee the lincesor and on any question or breach of the terms of licence either party may apply in writing to DCAS (Admn) Air Headquarters Chakala to decide such dispute whose decision as sole arbitrator shall be final and binding upon both the parties."
2. ' The plaintiff filed C.P. No,D-1081 of 2006 in which an order was passed on 11-1-2007, the relevant and operative part is reproduced as under:--- ' The respondent No,2 is directed to dispose of the arbitration filed by the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order."
3. ' The matter was referred to Mirza Zafar Hussain, Air Marshal, for arbitration who has given his award on 13-3-2007 and the same has been filed in Court on 21-4-2007. The operative part of the award is reproduced as under:--- "(b) The contract period has been expired on 30th March, 2006. More than one year time period has been passed after the expiry of the said contract. No rent has been received for this time period. The petitioner is still in possession of the said shop. She has been creating administrative/security problems for AFOHS Complex administration by not adopting the laid down security procedure/initiating requisite security clearance documents for her employees acid instead she demands a blanket clearance for all her workers/employees. Moreover, she has been using unparliamentary language for the officers (serving and retired) of P.A.F. Thereby tarnishing the image of P.A.F. She is directed to hand over the possesion of subject Shop No,1 within 30 days."
4. ' After filing of the award in Court notices were issued to the parties. The notice upon the defendants was returned unserved but when the case was fixed in Court on 14-11-2007 Mr. Muhammad Asif Khudai, Advocate, appeared for defendants. The notice upon the plaintiff was served on 25-10-2007 and the objections were filed on 27-10-2007.
5. ' In the objection the plaintiff submits that the award seems to be a manoeuvered document. It was further stated that award was passed ex parte and the submissions of the plaintiff were not considered.
6. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the defendants.
7. ' The learned counsel for the defendants submits that the award was properly made and filed in Court and that in the detail objections no illegality in the award has been pointed out. He further submits that the scope of filing of objection to the award is very limited and the award can only be attacked on the ground of misconduct on the part of learned Arbitrator and no such ground was taken in the objections.
8. ' It is now well-settled principle of law that Court cannot act as an Appellate Court and the jurisdiction is supervisory in nature. The Court while examining the validity of an award cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by the arbitrator in order to discover the error or infirmity in the award. The error or infirmity in the award must appeared on the face of the award and should be discovered by reading the award itself. It is also well-established principle of law that when a dispute is referred to an arbitrator it becomes the duty of the Court to give every reasonable intendment in favour of the award and lean towards holding it rather than to vitiating it.
9. ' The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants has some weight that award can only be challenged on the ground of misconduct on the part of arbitrator. The objections are silent in this regard. The only objection is that the award is manoeuvered and back dated. No reason has been assigned by the plaintiff in this regard and mere allegation is not sufficient to reject the award. The other contention is that the award is ex parte. From the proceedings it appears that the notice was served upon the plaintiff who chooses to remain absent and after passing of the award cannot blame others. It appears that the learned Arbitrator has provided sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to appear and pleaded her case.
10. ' The arbitrator is the Judge of all matter arising in the dispute. It is not proper for the Court to proceed to scrutinize the award in order only to discover an error for the purpose of setting aside it.
11. The plaintiff has failed to point -out any perversity, illegality in the award andhas also failed to establish any misconduct on the part of the learned Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator has based his findings in view of terms of agreement of license executed between the parties and while directing the plaintiff to vacate the premises has not committed any error.
12. ' In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the award. The objections are therefore, rejected and the award is made rule of the Court.
13. ' The suit is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. The office is directed to prepare the decree. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.