Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1 was awarded a contract for construction of Second Bridge over River Ravi near Sagian on 11.3.1993 in consideration of Rs, 112.257 millions, which was to be completed within a period of 12 months. After completion of work Respondent No, 1 raised certain claims against appellant before the nominated arbitrators (Respondents No, 2 & 3) according to agreement. Both arbitrators unanimously resolved on 31.10.1996 that Respondent No, 1 is entitled to recover a sum of Rs, 1,69,75900/-. This Award was not challenged by appellants before the Court, however, respondent filed an application under Section 14 read with Section 17 of the Arbitration Act before learned Civil Court on 14.11.1996 with a prayer to make the Award Rule of Court. Learned Civil Court issued notices on the same day for 28.11.1996. On the said date Malik Abdul Waheed, SDO appeared and filed the Award in Court. Notices to the other appellants were also issued for 7.1.1996 with a specific notice to the effect to show-cause as to why Award be not made Rule of Court. On 1.12.1996, learned counsel for the parties appeared along with a representative of the appellants and fact that Award has been filed in Court was also recorded. On 10.12.1996, Syed Anwaar Hasnat, Executive Engineer of the appellants appeared and stated that he has no objection with regard to making the Award Rule of Court in accordance with law. Thereafter, matter remained pending till 12.3.1997, when the Award was finally made Rule of Court. This order is being assailed through the instant appeal.
2. Before learned counsel for the appellants could open his case on merits, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that after filing of Award in Court on 28.11.1996 and particularly in the presence of learned counsel and the representative of the appellants on 1.12.1996 appellants could file objection, if any, within a period of 30 days from the said date under Article 158 of the Limitation Act. Since no objection was filed, therefore, appellants are estopped to challenge the Award.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, maintains that learned trial Court should have fixed a specific date inviting objections from the appellants. In the absence of any such specific date case of the appellants has been prejudiced. It is further submitted that reply to the application was also not invited. Such a reply was prepared and was presented to the Court but the same was not entertained.
4. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. Article 158 of the Limitation Act provides 30 days time to the parties from the date of filing of Award to raise objection, if any. After said period no party can be allowed to raise any objection with regard to Award. No provision of law requires a Court to fix a particular date inviting objections from either party. It is choice of the parties within the prescribed period of limitation to raise any objection or not.
6. Apart from this Syed Anwaar Hasnat, Executive Engineer appeared before the Court on 10.12.1996 and made a specific statement. that he has no objection to the effect that Award may be made Rule of Court. It is also to be noted that appellants had been continuously represented till the last date of the impugned order and they never bothered to raise any objection with regard to Award.
7. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this appeal, same is accordingly dismissed.