' These are two applications, the first by the plaintiffs praying that the award filed in this case by the arbitrator be declared to have become the rule of the Court in terms of the Order dated 13-5-1977; and the second by the defendants under section 151, C. P. C. Requesting that the furnishing at the sale or to furnish such security as the Court may direct, before his application can be entertained. It was observed that a proviso is not to be interpreted so as to have greater effect than the strict construction of the proviso renders necessary and that the enacting part of rule 90 is an enabling provision which provides for remedy to an aggrieved party if the sale is tainted with irregularity or fraud. It was further observed that the object of procedural law is to promote the dispensation of justice and extend, where possible consistently with the language of the statute, the remedy to avoid injustice. The observations of their Lordships in Toor Gul v. Mumtaz Begum (1), were cited to the effect that the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure are in the nature of enabling provisions and are made for advancement of justice so that, as far as possible, they should not be allowed to operate so as to defeat the ends of justice. The above said observations are fully attracted in the present case and the question at issue has to be decided in the light of the same. It can hardly be disputed that the second proviso to section 33 is a procedural provision and section 33 is itself a remedial enactment. It has therefore to be construed so as to advance the remedy and prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. The argument that by lapse of time the plaintiffs had acquired a vested right has no substance.
8. For the foregoing reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the Order for automatic confirmation of the award did not come into operation on account of the amendment of law which was effective on the date when the order could become final and therefore, by the removal of the embargo the application of the defendants for setting aside the award can be entertained. In the result, I grant the application of the defendants and dismiss the application of the plaintiffs. The case shall now be set down for hearing of the objections to the award.
(1) PLD 1971 SC 9