Through the instant Civil Revision the judgments and decrees dated 30.1.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Khushab upon an .Arbitration application moved under Section 14, Arbitration Act, 1940 which was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 18.3.2010 whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2010 of the learned Civil Judge was also dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Khushab have been assailed.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the Petitioners claimed a gift of the subject property from respondent Nos. 1 & 2. A dispute arose between the parties and an Arbitrator was appointed for resolving the same who announced an award. An application was moved by the petitioners for making the award as rule of the Court. This application was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 by a learned Civil Judge, Khushab. An application under Section 12(3) of C.P.C. Was moved by the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 against the petitioners which application came up for hearing before a learned Civil Judge, Khushab and was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 09.9.1997 and the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 was set aside resultantly the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 stood revived. The learned Civil Judge through the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2010 dismissed the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 moved by the petitioners. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2010 of the learned Civil Judge which appeal came up for hearing before a learned Additional District Judge, Khushab and has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.3.2010.
3. Through the instant Civil Revision the judgments and decrees passed by the two Courts below respectively dismissing the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the appeal of the petitioners by the learned Additional District Judge have been assailed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has addressed the arguments that an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. Was moved against the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976. The learned counsel contended that the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 was set aside on the sole ground that the learned Civil Judge who had passed the said decree had no pecuniary jurisdiction at that time upon the matter as the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit was determined as Rs. 300,000/- which was the pecuniary limits of a Civil Judge Class-III, Jauharabad. The learned counsel contended that insofar as the merits of the case were concerned the learned Civil Judge who passed the judgment and decree dated 09.9.1997 accepting the application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. Observed that the decree dated 27.5.1976 was not obtained through fraud and misrepresentation while recording the findings on issue No. 6 in the judgment and decree dated 9.9.1997. The learned counsel contended that after the setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 through the judgment and decree dated 09.9.1997 the findings recorded on the merits of the case that the arbitration proceedings were conducted lawfully should not have been revisited by the learned Civil Judge after revival of the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which course has been adopted by the learned Civil Judge in dismissing the application moved under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 through the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2010. The learned counsel contended that same illegality has been repeated by the learned Additional District Judge while passing the appellate judgment dated 18.3.2010.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has controverted this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners by arguing that a finding was recorded by the learned Civil Judge in the judgment dated 09.9.1997 for accepting the application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. That the learned Civil Judge passing the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. It is stressed that it cannot be allowed to be argued that the finding recorded by the said learned Civil Judge on the merits of the case regarding the non-commission of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining the award which was the resulting source of the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 remains intact in the field.. The learned counsel contends that a Court or Tribunal not possessing the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter cannot record a lawful finding regarding the merits of the .Case therefore the learned counsel for the petitioners is not entitled to claim that the findings recorded regarding the merits of the arbitration proceedings or the passing of the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 were entitled to have any sanctity in the eye of law.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties.
7. Admittedly the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 was held to have been passed by the learned Civil Judge who had no pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the case. An application moved by the respondents for setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 was adjudicated upon by the learned Civil Judge while passing the judgment and decree dated 09.9.1997 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by the learned Civil Judge who passed the said decree and that is why the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 as moved by the petitioners was ordered to be revived. The findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge in the judgment and decree dated 09.9.1997 while disposing of the application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. Moved by the respondents on merits that the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 was not obtained by practicing fraud and misrepresentation from the said Civil Court do not carry any legal sanctity once it is ordained that a Court or Tribunal lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a matter; the findings or observations whatever the case may be, expressed by the Court hearing the application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. That the decree assailed by invoking the provisions of Section 12(2) of C.P.C. Was not a result of fraud and misrepresentation cannot be allowed to be availed by the petitioners. The natural legal consequence of the finding recorded by the learned Civil Judge in the judgment dated 9.9.1997 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 27.5.1976 on the ground that the learned Civil Judge passing the said decree had no jurisdiction at all to pass the same, would be that finding recorded on merits certainly fade away. No sanctity is attached to any observation made by the learned Civil Judge in the judgment dated 9.9.1997 on merits of the case.
8. The two Courts below were perfectly correct to record finding regarding the merits of the case upon the application moved under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and to dismiss the same after analyzing the evidence got recorded in this matter. The petitioners cannot be allowed to get any benefit from the opinion expressed by the learned Civil Judge on merits of the case in the application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. No arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners qua the decision on merits in the application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
9. In view of the above the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below do not call for any interference by this Court. The instant Civil Revision being devoid of any merits is dismissed with no orders costs.
Civil revision .