1. Civil Miscellaneous No.2-C of 2012.
2. Civil Miscellaneous Nos.1, 2, 3 of 2014. Main Case.
3. IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.--- Anwar Khan (respondent No.4), according to the learned counsel for the respondents, has already been deleted from the original proceedings and in such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks deletion of said respondents. The request is allowed.
4. 2.Anwar Khan (respondent No.4) is deleted from the array of respondents.
5. 3.The suit for declaration, permanent injunction and cancellation of document was filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 against the present petitioners and respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5. The petitioners/defendants in the suit appeared on 24-7-2009 and, thereafter, continued appearing till 6-1-2010 by seeking time to file written statement. On 6-1-2010, the proceedings of the suit were adjourned at the request of the contesting respondents by providing them last and final opportunity to file written statement and the matter was adjourned to 12-1-2010. The written statement even on the said adjourned date was not filed and instead, an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed requiring a direction for staying the proceedings of the civil suit. The application was contested and vide impugned order dated 11-5-2010, the said application was dismissed which has been challenged through the present civil revision petition.
6. 4.Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), provides that where any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him commences any legal proceedings against any party to the agreement or any person claiming under him in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may, at any time before filing a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the judicial Authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceedings.
7. 5.The term in "other steps" used in section 34 of the Act has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of 'Muhammad Farooq v. Nazir Ahmad and others' (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 196) to the following effect:--- "From the above proceedings in the Court it would be clear that the appellant even after the receipt of notice of the plaint got three clear dates for filing written statement but the application under section 34 of the Act was moved on the fourth date. Above acts of the appellant on number of dates stated above would show that he intended to participate and defend the suit before the Court."
8. 6.Earlier in case of 'Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Messrs Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners' (PLD 1981 SC 553), it was held:--- "The Legislature has, of course, clearly implied in the language used in the section that the arbitration Clause should be respected, but has also made it abundantly clear that the party seeking to avail of the provision of stay under this section must clarify his position at the earliest possible opportunity, so as to leave no manner of doubt that he wishes to have resort to arbitration proceeding. If he hesitates in this regard, or allows the suit to proceed in any manner, that conduct would indicate that he has abdicated his claim to have the dispute decided under the arbitration clause, and to have thereby forfeited his right to claim stay of the proceedings in the Court."
9. "Frequent requests for adjournment for filing written statement would fall within the purview/ambit of the phrase "taking any other steps in the proceedings" within the meaning of section 34 of the Arbitration Act."
10. 7.Hence, it is abundantly clear that the request made on behalf of the petitioners seeking opportunities to file written statement are steps taken in the proceedings which resulted to show the intentions of the petitioners to participate and defend the suit before the court.
11. 8.The requirement of section 34 of the Arbitration Act is in fact the spontaneous reaction of the respondents in the suit for getting the proceedings of the suit stayed, whereas in the case in hand on a number of occasions, the petitioners not only appeared before the court but in order to contest the suit availed the opportunities to file written statement. The application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, was only moved in order to avoid the filing of written statement for which the learned trial court provided last and final opportunity. The act on the part of the petitioners in filing the belated application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, was not only violative to the requirements of the said provision of law but also seems to be contumacious in order to avoid the filing of written statement.
12. 9.The learned trial court has rightly proceeded to dismiss the application of the petitioners moved under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and the impugned order suffers from no illegality or irregularity and thus, is not liable to be interfered with.
13. 10.This civil revision petition, having no force, is dismissed.