' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The respondent No,1 being an Agent/contractor was authorized to collect TV Licence fee under the Television Receiving Apparatus (Possession and Licensing) Rules, 1970, on the basis of an agreement for the years 2000 to 2001. The area of its jurisdiction was the whole of Pakistan excluding AJK, FATA and PATA. On successful completion of his achievement of target, his contract was extended twice i.e, for the year 2001-2002 and then for the year 2002-2003 for which the respondent No,1 had also executed irrevocable bank guarantees.
2. The dispute between the two cropped up when respondent No,1 failed to achieve his target for the years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 and the appellant called upon the respondents Nos.2 and 3 for encashment of irrevocable bank guarantees which was resisted by the respondent No,1 by filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the Act) for appointment of arbitrator and reference of the dispute to him on the basis of arbitration clause embodied in their agreement.
3. Accordingly, the arbitrator was appointed who after compliance of the procedure made an Award dated 13-12-2007 between the parties and then was filed in the Court. The appellant herein filed objections against the award.
4. The objections were dealt with by the trial Court and were disposed of mainly on the plea of limitation and thereby award was made Rule of the Court and decree was accordingly granted in favour of the respondent No,1, hence, the present appeal.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that no notice under section 14(2) of the Act was issued to the appellant by the Court, so the limitation for filing of objection would start running only from the date of their knowledge of filing of award in the court, hence objections were well within time. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award was not properly stamped thus have no evidentiary value and so had no adverse effect against the rights of the appellant. He further submitted that the lower Court has failed to considered its other objections in accordance with law including that of misconduct of the Arbitrator and requested for setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 10-9-2008 by placing reliance on Chairman, Railway Board, Lahore and 2 others v. Hafiz Abdul Qayyum PLD 1984 Pesh. 285; Messrs Shafi Corporation Ltd. Karachi v. Government of Pakistan through Director General of Defence Purchase PLD 1981 Kar. 730 and Mst. Farida Malik and others v. Dr. Khalida Malik and others 1998 SCMR 816.
6. As on the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1, while referring to the original record submitted that the appellant was fully aware of the filing of award in the Court and copy of the same was also sent by the arbitrator to the appellant and submitted that it does not lie in his mouth to say that he had no notice of the filing of award in the Court, further submitted that their objections were hopelessly time barred and supported the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court. Placed reliance on Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and 2 others v. Messrs Usman and Sons through Managing Director and others 2002 MLD 414, Abdul Ghani and 4 others v. Mst. Saida Naim Hussain 1984 SCMR 597 and Hari Chand v. Lachhman Das and others AIR (35) 1948 East Punjab P.11.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record of the case with their valuable assistance.
8. Record of the case reveals that Award dated 13-12-2007 was received by the Court on 23-10- 2007 as reflected from the endorsement made on the covering letter of the arbitrator along with the award and objections against the same were filed in the Court on 28-2-2008. The record of the case further reveals that the case file was received by learned Civil Judge-III, Peshawar as a transferee Court on 23-1-2008. The order of the Court dated 23-1-2008 is silent about the receipt of award and the case was adjourned to 2-2-2008 which reflects non-service of the appellant and then the case was fixed for 28-2-2008. On 28-2-2008, the appellant filed the objections against the award. The perusal of the impugned judgment dated 10-9-2008, reveals that the objection petition was turned down by the learned Judge, mainly on the ground of limitation by holding that the objections were filed beyond statutory period of limitation of 30 days provided under Article 158 of Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 and non-compliance of the appellant with the requirements of section 33 of the Act ibid. Record reveals that no such directions under section 33 of the Act ibid regarding deposit of amount or furnishing of security were given to the appellant as the amount was lying with the Bank. It further reveals that the award dated 13-12-2007 itself was not evaluated by the Court and the Court also failed to discuss the findings reached at in the award by the arbitrator and simply observe "perusal of the award shows that the award is based on evidence and there is no error either on the face or otherwise in the award". Such a tentative, shallow and cursory glance of assaying the award is not permissible under the law. The Court has to minutely discuss each and every aspect embodied in the award, whether evidence so recorded by the arbitrator has properly been appreciated and discussed by him in accordance with the law, whether the award is in accordance with the terms of reference or not etc. The Court is not supposed to put a stamp of verification by simply making the same rule of the Court. It has to evaluate the evidence recorded by the Arbitrator, it has to consider the findings arrived at by the arbitrator and is not supposed to act mechanically just like a forwarding agency that a matter was put up before the Court in the shape of award and the Court accordingly forwarded the same by just putting the seal of Court by making the same rule of the Court. While evaluating an award, the role of a Court should be of an active dissenter rather than passive consenter as was held by my learned brother in the Bench in the case of Government of N-.W.F.P. v. Shahin Shah and others 2009 MLD 1418. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-- "The legislature in its wisdom, as far as, it can be gathered from the scheme of the Act, did not envision the intervention of the Court just for the hack of it. It was rather purposive, meaningful and goal oriented. It being supervisory is meant to check the excesses and over doings in the conduct of the arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding. The role of Court, if seen in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and the case law that has grown over years in this behalf is that of active dissenter rather than passive consenter. But strange is the fact that the learned trial Court considered itself just a plant meant for manufacturing the goods known as rule of the Court on receipt of some raw material in the form of award. No part of its judgment reflects due or conscious application of mind. The judgment, thus, passed cannot be maintained under any canons of law and propriety."
9.In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law and in the circumstances the remand of the case has thus become inevitable.
10. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, judgment and decree of the trial Court is hereby set aside with the observations that the objections of the appellant would be deemed to be pending before the trial Court and the trial Court would be required to decide the same on merits and also pass an appropriate order in the light of the discussions made above as early as possible but not later than two months.