' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This civil revision is directed against the judgment dated 11-9-2006 and 16-4-2005 whereby the application of the petitioners to make the award Rule of the Court under sections 14/17 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed being barred by time.
2. The facts as stated in the instant petition are that the respondent No,1 who was owner of suit plot, obtained loan from House Building Finance Corporation and raised construction over there; that the respondent No,1 could not pay the loan to the House Building Finance Corporation, ,therefore, entered into an agreement dated 17-4-1983 with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. It was agreed between the parties, that the remaining amount would be paid to the House Building Finance Corporation by the petitioners and in addition thereof Rs,10,000 to the respondent No,l.
Anyhow, a dispute regarding the transfer of the house in the name of the petitioners was arisen between the parties, therefore, to resolve the controversy, the matter was referred with the consent of the parties to Arbitrators and for this purpose, respondents No,2 to 4 were appointed as Arbitrators. The award, as spelled out from record announced on 13-8-1995 whereby the petitioners were required to deposit Rs,50,000 with the Arbitrators for payment to the respondent No,1 and payment of remaining amount Rs,1,79,000 to the Housing Building Finance Corporation. As claimed by the petitioners, the aforesaid requirements of award was fulfilled, but the respondent No,1 refused to transfer the title of the house in question to the petitioners and at this eventuality, the petitioners filed an application under sections 14/17 of the Arbitration Act on 25-1-2000 to make the award Rule of the Court.The said application was opposed by the respondent No,1 on the ground of limitation and that the arbitration decision is product of fraud.
3. The learned trial Court, out of the divergent pleadings, framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the petition is timebarred?OPR-1
(2) Whether the petition in hand is not proceedable, against law and liable to be rejected for the reasons maintained in the preliminary objection No,2? OPR-1
(3) Whether there is contradiction, interpolation and fabrication in the photocopy dated 13-8-1995 and award dated 30-10-1957, if so its effect? OPR-1
(4) Whether the petitioner has violated the terms of agreement dated 17-4-1983 and who has dragged the respondent No,1 into frivolous litigation for which the respondent No,1 is liable to receive special cost from the petitioner? OPR-1
(5) Whether the petitioner is entitled to proceed resent petition in presence of a suit for recovery of amount Rs,2,00,000 already filed in the Court? OPR-1
(6) Whether the petition is liable to make rule of Court on the grounds as mentioned in the petition?
OPA
(7) Relief.
5. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence and finally the learned trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the application/petition filed under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, is barred by time.
6. Being aggrieved thereof, an appeal was filed, which was met with the same fate.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the learned Courts below erroneously dismissed the application under section 17 of the Arbitration Act on the ground of limitation as the same was well within time. Next contended that limitation is to be started from the date of receiving the notice issued under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, whereas in this case admittedly, no notice was issued under the aforesaid provisions by the Arbitrators, thus, the petitioners cannot be non-suited on this ground. Also contended that the provisions of Article 178 or 181 of the Limitation Act are not applicable, because of the reason that the limitation is to be started and counted from the issuance of the notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Reliance is placed on Chotirmal Khushaldas v. Laloomal Nariomal (AIR 1935 Sind 136), Sagar Mal and another v.
Parsotam Das and another (AIR 1942 Allahabad 36), The Pakistan Employees Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Karachi v. Mst. Anbwar Sultana and others (PLD 1969 Karachi 474), Mst. Bakhan and 11 others v. Mst. Sadan and another (2007 MLD 576), Bibi Najam and others v. Abdul Rehman (1998 SCMR 1304), Kh. Muhammad Yousuf v. Kh. Abdur Rashid and others (PLD 1967 Karachi 508) and Seonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand (AIR 1958 252).
8. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents contends that both the learned Courts below rightly appreciated the facts and the law applicable on the case and dismissed the application of the petitioners. Further contended, that the maximum limitation which is given in the law to file the application under section 17 of the Arbitration Act, is 90 days from the date of issuance of the notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, otherwise, three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, therefore, in any case, the application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act is barred by time. Reliance is placed on Noor Nabuwwat v. Moulvi Muhammad Noor Ali Khan (1999 CLC 1685), Mess Jame's Construction Company (Pvt.) Limited, Lahore through Executive Director and others v. Province of the Punjab through Secretary to the Government of the Punjab (Communication and Works) Department, Punjab, Lahore and others (2000 SCMR 1010); Nazir Ahmad and others v. Haji Nazir Ali and 3 others (2006 MLD 907), Mst. Farida Malik and others v. Dr. Khalida Malik and others (1998 SCMR 816), Lachman Dass v. Ram Lal and others (1990 PSC 809), Haji Nawab Din v. Sh. Ghulam Haider and another (1988 SCMR 1623), U Kelatha v. U Pannawa (AIR 1940 Rangoon 228), v. Sanjeevamina v. Yarram Purnamma and others (AIR 1984 Andhra Pradesh 28), Aditya Kiumar De Chowdhury v. Narayandas De Chowdhury (AIR 1971 Cal. 65), Sosa Bai v. Murai Lal (AIR 1954 Hyderabad 109), M. Venkataratnam and another v. M. Chelamayya and another (AIR 1967 Andhra Prdesh 257), Arman Prasad v. Ram Dularey Gupta (AIR (39) 1952 Vindhya Pradesh 25), Chimanlal Girdhar Ghanchi and others v. Dahyabhai Nathubhai Ghanchi and others (AIR 1938 Bombay 422), Uttamchand Motilalji v. Wasudeo Deorao Digambar (AIR (33) Nagpur 311), U Kelatha v. U Pannawa (Rangoon High Court 683), Akbar Ali (deceased by LR) and others v. Mumtaz Hussain another (AIR 1987 Bombay 39).
9. Heard.
10. From the perusal of the record which was examined with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, it is found that the Arbitrators who were appointed without the intervention of the Court, given their award on 13-8-1995; the award was announced in presence of both the parties who also put their signatures on award (Exh.P/1) and the application to make the award Rule of the Court was filed by the petitioners on 25-1-2000 after the period of about five years.
Before proceed further, it would be beneficial to reproduce the provisions relating to filing the application for making the award Rule of the Court. Article 178 of A the Limitation Act, 1908 is reproduced hereunder:-- ' Third Division-Application-Contd.
1 2 3
178. Under the Arbitration Act, 1940, for the filing in Court of an award.Ninety yearsThe date of Service of the notice of the making of the award.
11. The aforesaid provision relates to the situation where the Arbitrator has given the notice of making the award as provided by subsection 1 of section 14 of the Arbitration Act. In fact, the notice under section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, is given to the parties to inform them by the Arbitrators, so that the parties could make B an application under section 17 to the Court to make the award Rule of the Court, therefore, it can safely be stated that the right to apply to the Court for making the award Rule of the Court will be started when the notice is served upon the parties. For facilitation section 14 of the Arbitration Act is reproduced as under:--
14. Award to be signed and filed.---(1) When the Arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award.
(2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any personal claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.
(3) Where the arbitrators or umpire state a special case under clause (b) of section 13, the Court, giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall be added to, and shall form part of, the award.
12. Admittedly, in this case, no notice was served by the Arbitrators to the parties, therefore, the provisions of Article 178 of the Limitation Act would not be attracted and applicable, and in this situation, the C provisions of Article 181 of the Limitation Act would be helpful to the party to file an application to make the award Rule of the Court within time stipulated therein. Article 181 reads as under: {{TABLE} Third Division-Application-Contd 1 2 3 181.- Application Three When the right for which no years to apply period of limi- accrues. Tation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or by section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {{TABLE}}
13. It is ruled in plethora of judgments that in case, no notice is given by the Arbitrators under section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, the aforesaid Article which is residuary would be attracted.
14. It has not been denied by the petitioners that the award was announced by the Arbitiators in presence of both the parties. They also put their signatures on the award (Exh. P1), therefore, it can safely be held that the announcement of award was very much in the knowledge of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and an application to make the award Rule of the Court could have been filed within three years as provided in Article 181 of E the Limitation Act whereas in this case admittedly the relevant application was filed before the learned trial Court on 25-1-2000 which is on the face of it is barred by time, thus both the learned Courts below after careful appreciation of record and the law applicable on the case, rightly reached to a conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner to make the award Rule of the Court was barred by time. Both the learned counsel for the parties given much emphasis during the course of arguments regarding the registration or non-registration of the award. Almost all the judgments referred by both the sides are related to the registration of an award whereas in this case, neither any issue was framed nor any objection was raised by the petitioners, therefore, the arguments raised by both the learned counsel for the parties have no relevance with the issue involved in this case.
15. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any jurisdictional defect, legal infirmity, material irregularity, misreading and non-reading of record with the concurrent conclusion rendered by the learned Courts below, therefore, there is hardly any reason to interfere therewith while exercising the revisional jurisdiction.
16. It is now well settled proposition of that the concurrent findings of facts based on evidence are not liable to be interfered F therewith in exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. Reliance is placed on Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others (2000 SCMR 346), Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others (2000 SCMR 431) and Rana Abdul Rasheed v. Iqbal Hussain (2008 CLC 1). On the scope and maintainability of civil revision against concurrent findings of the learned Courts below in such like cases, this Court is guided and enlightened by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases reported as Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291), Abdul Qayyum through legal heirs v. Mushk-e-Alam and another (2001 SCMR 798) and Abdul Mateen and others v. Mst. Mustakhia 2006 SCMR 50. It was held that "re- examination and re-appraisal of evidence was not permissible in revisional jurisdiction even if conclusion drawn by subordinate Courts on question of fact was erroneous and revisional power of High Court was exercised for correcting an error committed by subordinate Courts and that mere erroneous decision would not call for interference, unless it was established that decision had been based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence or it was perverse so as to cause grave injustice."
17. Resultantly, this petition has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.