' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Facts of the case in brief are that respondent filed an application under section 17 of The Arbitration Act, 1940 for making award dated 8-2-1996 Rule of the Court. The petitioner filed certain objections which were rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 18-2-1998. Arbitration Award was made rule of the court. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, who vide impugned judgment dated 1-10-2004 dismissed the same. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court rejected the objection of the petitioner, without. Framing necessary issues and affording him an opportunity to produce evidence in support of his claim; that the learned trial Court made the award as rule of the court in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Arbitration Act; that the Arbitrator misconstrued the provisions of agreement while drawing award and the learned trial Court equally fell in error in making the award as rule of the court; that the petitioner raised specific objection as to the misconduct of the Arbitrator while conducting proceedings of award; that the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner while observing that no such objection was taken by the petitioner before the trial Court which fact is sufficient to believe that the learned lower appellate court has not applied its mind while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner; that it was the duty and obligation of the courts below to rectify the errors at the time of making award as rule of the Court but both the courts below have failed to do the needful while passing impugned orders.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the courts below passed the impugned orders after appreciation of the material available on the record; that it is not necessary for the trial court to frame issues on the application for making awarding as rule of the court; that cut of date for making supply was fixed initially as 30-6-1993 which was subsequently extended by mutual consent till 31-8-1993 which was unilaterally shortened by the petitioner from 31-8-1993 to 20-8-1993 without the consent of respondent: that both the courts below have passed well- reasoned orders which needs no interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the learned trial Court accepted the application of the respondent for making award as rule of the court and rejected the objections of the petitioner without framing of necessary issues and recording of evidence. The petitioner has inter alia raised objection that the arbitrator misconducted the proceedings which according to section 30(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was one of the valid grounds on which the award should have been set aside. This objection could not be decided summarily and required thorough probe/recordable of evidence. The learned lower appellate court while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner observed that objection with regard to misconduct of the arbitrator was not raised by the petitioner before the trial court which otherwise stands proved on record and this shows the lack of interest on the part of learned lower appellate court while rendering impugned judgment. The summary decision made by the learned trial Court and upheld by the learned lower appellate court is violative of the mandatory provisions of law and suffers from material illegality and irregularity and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on case reported as Chief Administrator Auqaf Punjab and another v. Mst. Nazir Fatima (1998 M LD 176) wherein it has been laid down as under:-- "The judgment and the decree show that the trial Court decided the objections of the matter in a summary manner. Keeping in view in the present of this magnitude which involved many complicated and contested questions of law and facts, recently section 26-A, section 30 and section 41 of the Arbitration Act. It is the duty and obligation of the Trial Court to frame issues under Order XIV of C. P. C. But the learned trial did not frame issues. It is a basic and fundamental principle of law if no issues are framed at all and the parties are prejudiced, it will be a material irregularity and the parties can, as a matter of right, claim the framing of issues because the framing of issues, is one of the most important stage of the trial, for the reasons that under Order XVIII, Rule 2, C.P. C. The parties are required to prove the issues and not the pleadings generally.
Where a matter not pleaded is put in issues the suit must be decided on the issues as framed.
Under Order XX, Rule 5, C.P. C. The Court is bound to give a decision on each issue framed. The Appellant (sic) Court is also to decide the appeal on the basis of the issues framed by the trial Court. It is pertinent to mention here the provisions with regard to affidavit relate to the mode of receiving evidence. In Firm Sant Lal. Mahadeo Prasad v. Kedar Nath" (AIR 1935 Allahabad 519), the relevant observation is as under:--- "The Court has not attempted to act in accordance with the provisions of 0. XX, R. 5, and that the Court should state its findings or decision with reasons therefore upon each separate issues."
8. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court violated the mandatory provisions of the Civil Procedure Code which are applicable to the present controversy by virtue of section 41 of the Arbitration Act, therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law."
6. For what has been discussed above, this revision petition is allowed as a result whereof impugned judgments of both the courts below are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore with direction to decide the same afresh after framing necessary issues and recording of the evidence of the parties. Keeping in view the old nature of the lis, the learned trial Court shall try its level best to decide the same expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.