Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--Through instant petition under Article 185(3) of the COnstitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Jamia Masjid Qazi Abdul Qadir and Dar-ul-Aloom Haqania Qadria Brewry Chowk, Joint Road, Quetta through Maulana Ghulam Yahya and others, petitioners, seek leave to appeal from a judgment of the-High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 05.05.2006, whereby petitioners' Civil Misc. Appeal No, 20 of 2002 has been dismissed.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been mentioned in the impugned judgment as well in the memo of petition. Suffice is to state that petitioners instituted suit for declaration that Managing Body alone was competent to run affairs of Jamia Masjid Qazi Abdul Qadir and Dar-ul-Aloom Haqania Qadria, Joint Road, Quetta, being society registered under the Societies Act, 1860. Suit was decreed against respondents on 03.07.1997 by learned Additional District Judge, Quetta. There-against respondents preferred appeal which was dismissed by the High Court on 09.02.1998. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 23-Q/1998 was filed by respondents before this Court, which came up for hearing on 31.05.1999, when the matter was referred to one Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Lehri to decide the question "as to who was managing the Mosque after its construction and prior to filing of the suit" after hearing and recording evidence of the parties and submit report within one month. However, it was informed on 29.07.1999 that Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Lehri had already expired whereupon nominations were sought of two Arbitrators from each side with an umpire in case of difference of op' lion, who shall decide the aforesaid question after proper proceedings. Arbitrators nominated from either side made dissenting reports whereupon umpire in his decision supported award of the Arbitrators in favour of the respondents.
Umpire filed Award in the Court of Additional District Judge, Quetta, who made it as a rule of the Court vide judgment dated 24.02.2000. On appeal matter was remanded by learned High Court on 19.09.2000 for decision afresh. On remand earlier decision was maintained vide judgment dated 04.07.2002 of the trial Court. Appeal was filed which was dismissed vide judgment impugned herein.
3. We have heard at length Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chishti, Advocate for the petitioners and Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate for the respondents. We have also gone through the entire record with their assistance.
4. It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that during arbitration proceedings objections were submitted in writing which were neither considered by the arbitrators or by the umpire or by learned Additional District Judge, Quetta, while making award and giving decision; that the evidence produced before the arbitrators was not appreciated in its true perspective; that the umpire only referred to the evidence considered by the two arbitrators with whom he concurred and the evidence considered by the other two arbitrators was not referred; that the decision of umpire is biased and that no finding was recorded in terms of reference indicated in the order of this Court dated 29.07.1999.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while refuting the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and supporting the impugned judgment on all counts contended that the umpire in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 31.05.1999 after taking into consideration the evidence on record gave his decision, and learned trial Court after receiving objections and hearing the parties and even on remand the trial Court in its decision afresh maintained its earlier decision in the matter, which decision has been upheld by learned High Court and that no such objections were raised before the arbitrators or before learned trial Court.
To substantiate the contentions, reliance was placed on Muhammad Abdul Khaleque and others vs. Birendra Lal Das Choudhury and others (PLD 1955 Dacca 13), Messrs Waseem Construction Co. vs. Government of Sindh and others (PLD 1987 Karachi 575) and M/s. Awan Industries Ltd vs. the Executing Engineer Lined Channel Division and another (1992 SCMR 65).
6. The litigation between the parties started in 1994, when petitioners, instituted suit seeking declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that respondents are not competent to manage, run and interfere in the affairs of the mosque/Dar-ul-Aloom in question by posing themselves as its `Muntazameen' or for collecting `Chanda' or holding meetings etc.
7. Having considered the matter from all corners in the light of material on the file, we find that contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners do not carry weight as the matter was referred by this Court vide Order dated 31.05.1999 to the arbitrators for decision on the issue with consent of the parties, thereby impliedly setting aside the judgment of the trial Court as well as of the High Court. It is a well established rule of law that where a dispute is referred to an arbitrator of the choice of the parties and he makes an award, it becomes the duty of the Court to give every reasonable intendment in favour of the award and lean towards upholding it rather than vitiating it as held by this Court in Ishfaq Ali Qureshi vs. Municipal Corporation Multan and another (1984 SCMR 597). A similar view was taken in Abdul Rauf vs. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar (PLD 1958 (W.P.)
Karachi 145) where it was observed as follows: "A well settled rule of construction of the award is that the award should be construed liberally and in accordance with common sense, and it should be so read that it can be given effect to, and not so that it would nullify the efforts of the arbitrator appointed by the parties themselves."
8. Record reveals that the mosque in question was constructed on the land owned by Pakistan Railways. In our view without consent of the Railways authorities no person could claim to be `Mutawalli' of the same or to appoint further 'Mutawallf or hand over management of the mosque to other persons on the basis of a society registered long after construction of the mosque with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Umpire after taking into consideration above factors as well as other documentary and ocular evidence produced by the parties, particularly the record of Railway authorities showing payment of salaries to Maulana Abdul Qadir, rightly concluded that affairs of the mosque were being managed by committees constituted by the Mohalla people at different times before and after construction of the mosque. Mere contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision of umpire was biased and could not have been accepted blindly, without a positive attempt on his part .o substantiate the same, is of no consequence. There is nothing on record to show that objection regarding misconduct on the part of arbitrators or umpire was "ever raised before the trial Court or before learned High Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners, despite his best efforts could not point out any infirmity, legal or factual, in the impugned judgment, warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this petition.
9. In the circumstances, finding the petition bereft of merit, we dismiss the same and decline to grant leave.