' DR. SAJID QURESHI, J.---This Civil Revision is directed towards the judgments and decrees of the learned Senior Civil Judge (SCJ), and the Addl. District Judge (ADJ), dated 27-4-2005 and 14-9- 2005 respectively. The facts are that there was an agreement between the parties, dated 25th June, 1999 for the collection of Toll Tax at Islamabad High Way, Islamabad. Controversies arose and the matter was filed regarding the Arbitration Clause.
2.. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the lower-Courts had wrongly interpreted the clause of the agreement. That the learned SCJ had discussed clause (25) of the said agreement, which reads as follows:-- "In the event of any question a dispute arising under or in connection with this contract which cannot be amicably settled between the parties, the same shall be resolved by reference to Chairman CDA whose decision shall be final and binding to the parties".
3. The learned counsel stated that this agreement was duly signed by both parties and the learned SCJ had wrongly interpreted this clause in that he claimed that this was an arbitration clause and decided this matter in favour of the respondent invoking full arbitration proceedings. Further, in the relief, the learned SCJ had accepted the petition and removed the Chairman CDA as an arbitrator and had appointed Mr. Justice (Retd.) Mansoor Ahmad Khan, Secretary M/o Law, Justice and Human Rights as a new arbitrator. The parties were also directed to submit their claim before the new arbitrator. Fee of the arbitrator was to be fixed by himself which was to be paid by the petitioner. The learned. Addl. District Judge, had adjudged on the point that whether any agreement between the parties regarding the contract was executed and if so whether the said agreement was containing any arbitration clause or otherwise. The learned Addl. District Judge, Islamabad had also erred in interpreting clause 25 in that the intention was to get a dispute settled through a third person which meant proceedings of arbitration. The learned Addl. District Judge, had upheld the order of the learned lower Court. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Capital Development Authority (Abatement of Arbitration Proceedings) Act, 1975 on section 3; which reads as follows:-- Abatement of proceedings before arbitrators, etc.---(1)
' Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, or any order of a Court or any agreement:-
(a) any provision in an agreement entered into before the coming into force of this Act by or on behalf of the Authority and a contractor relating to the execution of any project or works or to the supply of any goods or labour or to the performance of any obligation, providing for reference to arbitration of any dispute arising out of the agreement or any term or condition thereof shall stand abrogated and annulled and be of no effect;
(b) all arbitration proceedings in pursuance of any such agreement as is referred to in clause (a), whether the reference to arbitration was made by the consent of the parties thereto, by order of a Court or otherwise, pending before an arbitrator or arbitrators or an umpire immediately before the coming into force of this Act shall forthwith abate and, save as hereinafter provided, shall be of no effect;
(c) any award made by an arbitrator, arbitrators, or umpire in pursuance of any such agreement as is referred to in clause (a) shall, unless the award has been made the rule of the Court, or partly or wholly implemented or acted upon, stand annulled and be of no effect, and any proceedings in respect of such award, if pending immediately before the coming into force of this Act, shall abate;
(d) all proceedings in relation to an application made to a Court for referring a dispute to arbitration pursuant to an agreement referred to in clause (a) shall abate, and any order made by a Court on such application referring the dispute to arbitration shall be of no effect; and
(e) any dispute referred to arbitration the proceedings whereof have abated by reason of the provisions of this section shall be decided in accordance with the provisions of the law for the time being in force.
4. The learned counsel while referring to this legislation said that all proceedings of arbitration are annulled and stand abrogated.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent stated as per his interpretation, section 3 of the Capital Development Authority (Abatement of Arbitration Proceedings) Act, 1975, states that any agreement or contracts regarding execution of any project or works etc. Which were duly signed after 1975 will allow for proceedings before arbitrators. He did not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the interpretation of section 3. The said agreement was duly signed in 1999 hence, abatement of proceedings before arbitrators cannot take place under the said 1975 Act. The learned counsel for respondent further stated that if the matter be referred to some body except the judicial forum then the intention is to refer the matter to arbitration. The learned Addl. District. Judge, was correct in that existence of the arbitration clause was obvious and the lower Court had rightly applied its mind and validly passed the impugned order.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused and legislation examined.
7. The said agreement was duly signed on 25th June, 1999, which contained clause (25) as stated above. Both parties had signed this agreement. This matter now revolves around upon interpretation of clause (25). Clause (25) is very straight forwardly worded and there is a filter mechanism for setting a dispute firstly there is a desire that it may be amicably settled between the parties and in case this fails then the same shall be resolved by reference to CDA Chairman, whose decision will be final in binding the parties. The learned SCJ had erred in interpreting this clause; this is a dispute resolving mechanism and in case arbitration is invoked, this is then beyond the scope of this Article, if that is so then other aspects of arbitration take place. Further the learned SCJ had erred in granting relief in that he could not remove the CDA Chairman as arbitrator as per clause (25) of the agreement and appoint a new arbitrator on his own sole discretion. The parameters of clause (25) do not allow such relief. The learned Addl. District Judge, Islamabad had also erred in that he interpreted clause (25) as a form of arbitration and he does accept this that the intention is to settle the dispute between the parties through a third person, but he goes beyond the scope of clause (25) and invokes arbitration proceedings which are in itself a whole new labyrinth of proceedings before the civil Courts under the umbrella of Arbitration Act, 1940 which the lower Courts are inferring to apply. As far as section 3 of the CDA (Abatement of Arbitration proceedings Act), 1975 is concerned, the provision (a) is very clear in that any provision in any agreement entered into before 1975 shall stand abrogated and annulled regarding the arbitration. Subsection (b) and subsequent subsections also support this contention hence since the agreement was signed in 1999 section 3 does not abate the proceedings before arbitrators and section 3 is not attracted in this case. Having said A this, to my mind, clause (25) of the said agreement is very clear in that firstly, the parties should amicably settle the dispute failing which, reference be made to Chairman CDA whose decision will be final and binding to the parties (my emphasis). This clause cannot be construed as an arbitration clause, and cannot attract the Arbitration Act, 1940 and its enabling clauses, but does invoke a provision for alternate dispute resolution with the final decision being upon the CDA Chairman. The intention of this clause is to settle disputes with a minimum of procedure, fuss and delay. Such-like clauses are to expedite dispute resolving, any delays can cause huge monetary losses for both parties. In my mind, the lower Courts had erred in interpreting clause (25) and had gone beyond its scope.
8. In view of the above, the impugned judgments and decrees, dated 14-9-2005 and 27-4-2005 passed by the learned lower Courts are set aside and the civil Revision is therefore allowed and the petition filed under sections 8, 11 and 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is to be dismissed. There is no order as to costs.