'ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Pir Muhammad Sabir Shah has questioned the judgment and decree of Senior Civil Judge, D.I. Khan dated 30-10-2004 and judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, D.I. Khan dated 2-6-2006, through the writ petition in hand.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties heard and record on file perused. In the light of which our discussion is as under:
3. An application was filed by the petitioner in the trial Court for making rule of Court the award given by arbitrators in respect of the dispute between parties. The parties entered into an agreement on the basis of which arbitrators were appointed and were empowered to decide the dispute between the parties. The arbitrators who were respondents Nos.2 to 5 in the original application decided the matter and an award dated 21-5-1991 was drawn. As this award was not acceptable to respondent No,1, therefore, an application for making the award rule of Court was made. The learned Court framed issues and after recording evidence and hearing arguments on the application, the same was dismissed and refused to issue a decree as rule of the Court.
4. The award is dated 1-6-1991. It is stated by one witness that the award was torn by Abdul Ghafar, one of the arbitrator and it seems that thereafter respondent No,1 refused to accept the said decision.
5. During proceedings of the Court one plea was that the award was misplaced by arbitrator Abdul Ghafar, while one other was that it was torn by said Abdul Ghafar. Two contradictory stands were before trial Court and after going through the evidence it has been held that the existence of the award is doubtful. There is no clear cut plea about the disputed award. The P.W. Abdul Ghafar is the main person who was allegedly in possession of the award. Two contradictory stands have been taken, one was that the award was torn and the second that it was misplaced, There is no clear cut stand that any award was given by the arbitrators. Award Exh P. W .2/1 has not been proved. In this way existence of award is doubtful and as such Court cannot act upon it.
6. We have come across no illegality, misreading or miscarriage of justice in the impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, not inclined to accept this petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed accordingly.