' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---Mst. Razia Begum respondent No,1 filed suit for maintenance allowance against the petitioner which was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court vide judgment dated 26-5-2003 on the basis of statement of Rana Muhammad Arshad who was appointed as referee with the consent of parties during pendency of the proceedings. Appeal filed by the petitioner against the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 13-9-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kallur Kot.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that from the statement of Referee recorded on 26-5-2003 by the learned Judge Family Court it was evident that he made statement in favour of respondent No,1 after hearing the parties. By inquiring into the matter and hearing the parties, he had lost the status of Referee and in fact he passed an award against which the learned Trial Court must have invited objections from the parties and after dismissal of the same should have proceeded to decide the controversy. Because of violation of this procedure, the judgment of the learned Trial Court was nullity in the eyes of law. Learned Additional District Judge also failed to appreciate this controversy in accordance with law, hence, judgments of both the learned Courts below were liable to be set aside. Reliance is placed on Chirag Din v. Muhammad Shafi, 2002 YLR 2479 Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan and others (1990 SCM R 763) and Naveed Aziz and another v. Rauf Ali Syed (1996 CLC 1932).
3. None appeared on behalf of respondent No,1 who is proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have gone through the record keeping in view the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of above referred case law. Both the parties through their mutual consent and statements recorded on 30-1-2003 appointed Rana Muhammad Ashraf as Referee in the case C by further binding themselves that any decision made by the Referee would be acceptable to them.
5. The intention of the parties, thus, is clear in their very statements. They had agreed to get the controversy settled through Referee by an admission covered under Article 33 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984.
6. To this extent the proposition was not controverted even by the learned counsel for the petitioner who objected to the procedure adopted by the Referee for drawing conclusion after hearing the parties and contended that he in fact had acted as an arbitrator.
7. It shall be appropriate to have a look through the statement of Rana Muhammad Ashraf, Referee recorded on 26-5-2003 by the learned Trial Court, English version of which is as under:-- "I have heard the parties. After hearing the parties I have reached the conclusion that suit filed by the plaintiff (respondent No,1) should be decreed, therefore, suit filed by her may be decreed."
8. It appears that in the cases relied upon by the petitioner, the. Referee in fact had started conducting the inquiry. It is evident from the statement of Referee in 1990 SCM R 763 that the referee heard the parties and their associates; examined the record and documents as well. In 1996 CLC 1932 the Referee had been conducting proceedings before him from 26-3-1995 to 26-4-1995.
However, before the decision was made by him, application for revocation of the authority, delegated to the Referee had also been moved. Detail of proceedings, conducted by the Referee, in the case 2002 YLR 2479, is not mentioned. This was a case in which proof of execution of a document was referred to the Referee and it was held in the said authority that controversy being a dispute of question of fact could not be resolved otherwise than through a proper trial by the civil Court.
9. The facts involved in all the three cases, therefore, are quite distinguishable and the ratio decided in the said case law is not applicable to the case in hand.
10. The matter in hand related to matrimonial dispute. In such cases details are ordinarily in the knowledge of the persons, near and dear to the spouses. The intention of the parties, reflected in their statements, depicts the same situation and it appears that Rana Muhammad Ashraf was fully acquainted with the affairs of the parties. It is not explained in the statement of the Referee as to what was heard by E him. The statement "I have heard the parties" of the Referee, per se, was not sufficient to prove that the Referee had conducted any inquiry like an Arbitrator and did not decide the controversy on the basis of his knowledge. Nothing could be contended by the petitioner to show that Referee had acted as an Arbitrator.
'Therefore, in no way can it be inferred from the above statement of the Referee that he conducted inquiry regarding the affairs of the spouses. Therefore, the parties were bound by the statement of the Referee by virtue of their admission as envisaged under Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
11. 'It further appears from the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge that Referee decided two issues between the parties i.e, one relating to recovery of articles of dowry in which decision was passed against the petitioner and not challenged by her and the second decided in the maintenance suit which has G been challenged by the petitioner. Under the same set of circumstances the petitioner could not be allowed to approbate or reprobate.
12. For the foregoing reasons this petition is held to be without any force, hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 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.