SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J. -- Petitioner's residential house measuring 293 Sq.Ft. (BUP) situated in the Revenue Estate of Chahan, District, Islamabad was acquired by CDA in the year 1963, which fact is corroborated from the list of affectees, as name of petitioner figures at Sr. No. 54. Grievance of petitioner is that, similarly placed persons, in lieu of their BUP have been allotted plots, whereas petitioner has been denied the same
2. CDA admitted the acquisition of BUP of petitioner and the fact that no plot allotted to petitioner on the ground that affectees having less than 300 Sq. Ft. Of BUP are not entitled to allotment of plot.
Moreover, BUP of petitioner was outside from Abade Deh, therefore, he was not considered as entitled to allotment of plot.
I have heard the learned counsels of the parties at great length and perused the appended documents.
3. It is beyond the comprehension to believe that CDA would deprive the affectees from their accrued vested rights, regarding which Honourable Supreme Court, through judgment dated 30.03.2009 given in Civil Petition No. 1264/2008 has already approved order of (dissolved) 111C, dated 13.05.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 1521 of 2006, whereby Petitioner in said Writ Petition having BUP measuring 282 Sq. Ft. Was held entitled to allotment of plot. have no hesitation in observing that affairs of CDA are being run through cryptic approach, dubious dealings, and enigmatic mannerism. Nobody is ready to listen and grant relief to any deserving person against his accrued and established rights, unless lucrative influence exercised or political pressure is exerted. The functionaries of CDA are found napping in performance of their statutory duties, resultantly, the aggrieved persons invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and unfortunately even orders of Courts are being frustrated and ridiculed, instant matter is no exception. The stance of CDA is not only ridiculous but contemptuous as well. Petitioner BUP was acquired about hall a century ago, he ran from pillar to post but failed to break the chain of corruption and corrupt practices, prevalent at CDA. At times one gathers the impression as if CDA functionaries have taken oath that they would not perform their duties without sucking the blood of deserving, poor and legitimate by way of getting satisfaction of bribe. General perception of the civic body of the capital is unpalatable and political appointments further polluted its affairs. If some remedial steps are not taken, this titanic civic body, would sink in the deep waters of irrelevant considerations, political influence and stinking practices.
2013 C.L.R. 106 [Lahore] MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.
M/s. Mazo Versus PASSCO F.A.O. No 377 of 2011, decided on 24th April, 2012 .
REFERENCE TO ARBITRATION --- (Stay of proceedings in suit)
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-- ---Ss. 39(i)(v)/34---Purchase contract-Suit for recovery of loss--- Dispute--- Trial Court referred the matter to the Arbitrator and till then proceedings of suit were stayed---It was contended that respondents had joined proceedings and obtained dates for filing of written statements, therefore, they had lost chance of availing remedy for making reference to the arbitration---Validity---Suit tiled by appellant had been stayed only for period of two months by referring matter to arbitrator---If appellant had not approached High Court and instead joined proceedings before arbitrator, matter would have been decided much earlier thin time consumed in availing remedy of appeal---Said powers had been rightly and correctly exercised by Trial Court--There was no evidence that appellant It ad lost any time and had not taken steps for invoking arbitration process at the first instance as required by law---Impugned order was in accordance with law.- F.A.O. Dismissed.
(Paras 7)
Ref. PLD 1981 SC 553. {{URDU TEXT}} [In recovery suit, Trial Court while referring dispute to the arbitration had in meantime, stayed proceedings in Court. F.A.O. Was dismissed].
For the Appellant: Alamgir, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Saqib Gardner, Advocate. Date of hearing: 24th April, 2012.
MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. Through this appeal the order dated 16.07.2011 has been assailed, whereby the learned Trial Court while staying the proceedings in the suit, accepted the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (X) of 1940 by referring the matter to the sole Arbitrator M.D.
PASSCO for Arbitration within the shortest possible period preferably within two months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant instituted a suit before the learned Trial Court seeking a decree for recovery of Ks. 1,940,300,000/- in respect of contract relating to purchase of 7000 Metric Tons Super Long Grain Basmati Rice by the appellant from the respondent. 'I he agreement was written according to the terms and conditions settled between (he parties, somehow, a dispute arose between the parties about the non-lifting of the rice within the stipulated period agreed between the parties as per agreement and the respondents forfeited the amount (paid in advance by the appellant 1 and the appellant suffered loss due to this dispute.
Thus filed a suit and the respondents joined proceedings of the suit and filed the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, by invoking the arbitration clause proceded in the agreement, for making the reference to the sole arbitrator and till then prayed for the stay of the suit proceedings.
The learned Trial Court while accepting that application, referred the matter to the arbitrator and till then the proceedings of the suit was stayed.
3. The appellant has impugned the order of the learned Trial Court while invoking the provisions of 39(i)(v) of the Arbitration Act (X) of 1940 before this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the respondents have joined the proceedings and obtained the dates for filing of the written statements, thereafter, they have lost the chance of availing the remedy provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, therefore, the learned Trial Court had travelled beyond its jurisdiction, while passing the impugned order which is untenable in the eye of law. Further, contends that keeping in view of the universally recognized doctrine that no one can be a Judge in his own cause, the reference to the M.D. PASC'CO (who is the head of the respondent/department) for arbitration of the matter, the appellant apprehends he will not get any justice, therefore, it would be an exercise in futility resulting in sheer loss of time and energies for nothing. Even otherwise, the appellant has claimed damages besides recovery of his advance amount which had been illegally forfeited, therefore, the reference to the arbitrator is illegal and un-lawful.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent contends that on 15.05.2011, copy of the plaint was delivered to the respondent and thereafter the respondent availed the remedy promptly as enunciated under Section 34 of Arbitration Act, therefore, there is no illegality in the order of the learned Trial Court. Further contends that the arbitrator was appointed with the Consultation and consensus of the parties as there was no undue pressure on the appellant at the time of executing the indenture and he with his free will, had not only agreed to the terms and conditions of the agreement but also signed it, therefore, at this stage he is estopped by his words and conduct and now cannot take shelter behind the doctrine that no one can be a Judge in his own cause. So, the order of the learned Trial Court is based on the principal laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court and taking into consideration the provisions of law Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, there is no illegality and irregularity, hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
5. 1 have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is astonishing for this Court that the suit filed by the appellant has been stayed only for the period of two months by referring the matter to the arbitrator, who had been appointed by both the parties relating to their disputes with their free consent and the learned Trial Court while exercising the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, referred the matter for obtaining the decision of the arbitrator. If the appellant had not approached this Court and it is stead, joined the proceedings before the CLR. arbitrator, the matter would have been decided much earlier than the time consumed in availing the remedy of appeal before this Court. The learned counsel for the parties have argued the merits of the case which have no relevancy at this juncture. The point at issue at the moment is whether the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has been rightly or wrongly exercised by the learned Trial Court. The facts and circumstances of the case as explain by the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, I find that the provision of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act has been rightly and correctly exercised by the learned Trial Court. The application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was aptly and promptly filed by the respondent as there is no evidence that the appellant had lost any time and had not taken steps for invoking the arbitration process at the first instance as required by Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Reliance is placed or? Pakistan international Airline Corporation v. M/s. Pak. Saff Dry Cleaner (PLD 1981 S.C.
553). Consequently, this Court feels no hesitation to declare that the order of the learned Trial Court is in accordance with law inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity while exercising the powers provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act with respect to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case at hand.
7. For what has been discussed above, this appeal has no force and dismissed accordingly.
F.A.O. Dismissed.