ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J.--- Sabir All son of Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammad Hassan Shah was owner of land measuring 40 kanal 18 marla situated at district Sheikhupura and vide registered gift deed dated 8.4.1996, he gifted the said property to his nephews Amir Ali Shah, Tanvir Ali Shah, Tauqir Hussain Shah, Zamir Ali Shah, Muhammad Zahir Shah, Jamshed Haider Shah and Zaki ul Hassan Shah vide mutation No. 1008, sanctioned on 24.4.1996. Mst Zahoor Fatima, who is real sister of the aforementioned Sabir Ali, challenged the gift deed through a suit for declaration filed on 3.4.1994. The suit was contested and out of pleadings of the parties, issues were settled on 4.3.2002. The matter remained pending for about one and a half year for the evidence of the plaintiff when on 15.9.2003 the parties made a statement that they have appointed Munawar Shah and Adil Murtaza as arbitrators and they made a request for the issuance of a Robkar. A reference made to the arbitrators remained pending up till 6.5.2004 awaiting for their report when the petitioners/defendants raised an objection that they had no confidence on the arbitrators and that the file be taken up on merits whereas counsel for the plaintiff made a request that because of the harvesting season, the arbitrators could not appear before the Court and on her request, the matter was adjourned for 29.5.2004. It was observed by the Civil Court that in case the arbitrators fail to appear before it, evidence of the plaintiff shall be recorded. On 10.6.2004, the arbitrators, named above were present before the Court and made their statements that they had prepared their award but the counsel for the defendants raised an objection that they had shown their lack of confidence on the arbitrators and that the award cannot be placed on the record, so the matter was adjourned for arguments as to whether the award could be placed on the record or not. Vide order dated 22.9.2005, request of the plaintiff to made award rule of the Court was declined on the ground that the arbitrators failed to submit the award within four months and also the defendants had show lack of confidence on the said arbitrators. The said order was assailed through a revision petition and addl. District Judge vide order dated 2.3.2006 set-aside the order of the Civil Court dated 22.9.2005, with a direction to the Trial Court to receive the award. Feeling aggrieved of the same, the petitioners/defendants have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The contentions of counsel for the petitioners are that the award was not rendered within the mandatory period of four months, the arbitration proceedings were initiated without the intervention of the Court and since the petitioners/defendants showed their lack of confidence, therefore, the award could not have been placed on the record. According to him, the arbitration agreement was not signed by all the parties, therefore, the present petitioners are not bound by the same. With these submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order of the Addl. District judge dated 2.3.2006 be set-aside. The order of the Civil Court dated 22.9.2005 may be up held and the Civil Court directed to proceed with the matter on merits.
3. Conversely, the contentions of counsel for the respondent are that the parties mutually agreed for settlement of the matter through the intervention of the arbitrator as is apparent from interim order dated 15.9.2003 and also that there was no reason for the Civil Court to decline to receive the award and also that the revisional Court has already stayed the order of Civil Court.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Copy of the order sheet is available on the file.. Order dated 15.9.2003 shows that the parties mutually agreed for the appointment of the arbitrators. Both the parties and their counsel put their signatures on the margin of the order sheet for the said purpose. The order sheet further shows that the case had been adjourned in a routine manner. Section 11(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is relevant which say3 that Court may, on the application of any party to the reference, remove an arbitrator or umpire who fails to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on and proceeding with the reference and making an award or the arbitrator or umpire who has misconduct himself or the proceedings. There is nothing on the record to show that any of the parties filed any application for the removal of arbitrators and that they committed misconduct in the proceedings. Clause 3 of the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is also clear on the point that the arbitrators shall make award within four months after entering on the reference or after having been called upon to act by notice in writing from any party to arbitration agreement or within such extended time as the Court may allow. The matter remained pending from 20.10.2003 up till 6.5.2004 waiting for the summoning of the arbitrators and the filing of the award. No material is available on the file to show that any of the parties to the arbitration was issued any notice to the arbitrators to make their award. The arbitrators were not removed through a specific order up till 10.6.2004 when they appeared before the Court for filing their award. The revisional Court has rightly set-aside the order of the Civil Court dated 22.9.2005 directing the Civil Court to receive the award and then allow the parties to raise their objection u/s 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 within the prescribed period of limitation to decide the same in accordance with the law. Counsel for the petitioner could not successfully point out any illegality or material irregularity to have been committed by the revisional Court. There is no substance in the instant petition, hence the same is dismissed. .