' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JEHANGIR, J.---The brief facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under sections 14/17 of Arbitration Act for making award as rule of the court before the learned trial Court stating therein that the deceased Bahoo was real brother of Fazal, the predecessor of the petitioners/ plaintiffs, who was owner of the disputed land fully described in the body of the said petition, situated in Tehsil Jaranwala; that Bahoo deceased belonged to "Sunni" sect, but respondents in connivance with each other and the revenue authorities to usurp the property of deceased Bahoo showed him as `shia' and got attested mutation in their favour; that the petitioners/plaintiffs were deprived of their lawful shares from the legacy of deceased Bahoo; that dispute between the parties arose regarding the property in dispute and the parties appointed Malik Nawab Sher Waseer, respondent No,5, as Arbitrator after executing agreements; that appointed arbitrator heard the parties and the respectable of the village and announced the award on 18-11-2006, wherein, Bahoo deceased was declared as `sunni' and petitioners were declared to be entitled to get the share from the legacy of Bahoo. The petitioners/plaintiffs prayed through their petition for making the award dated 18-11-2006 as rule of court.
2. On the other hand, the respondents/defendants contested the petition filed by the petitioners through their written reply and alleged that. Bahoo deceased in his life time had executed a will and affidavit on 11-7-1974 confirming that he belonged to `shia' sect while the predecessor of the petitioners Fazil also executed an affidavit on 10-4-1987 to the effect that his brother Bahoo was a `shia' and on the strength of said document, the Revenue Officer attested the inheritance Mutation No,590 on 5-5-1987 in the common assembly of the village; that later on predecessor of the petitioners-plaintiffs, Fazil etc., filed a suit for declaration'before the learned Civil Court, Jaranwala, for the cancellation of said mutation with the assertion that Bahoo deceased was in fact `Sunni"; that the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 26-1-1995; that said Fazil etc, again filed a suit for declaration of the similar nature on 13-1-1997, which was dismissed on 16-4-1999; that an appeal was ' also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge vide his judgment dated 14-12-1999 and the controversy regarding the sect of deceased Bahoo came to an end because the predecessor of the petitioners did not assail the said findings before any other forum. The respondents further asserted in their written reply that they filed an application for partition of joint holding before the Revenue Officer, who accepted the same vide order. Dated 7-9-1998; that the petitioners filed an appeal before the District Collector, Faisalabad and at that stage the parties agreed to appoint.
Respondent No,5 as arbitrator for resolutiop of their dispute regarding partition of land; that the arbitrator did not announce the award within time and the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution on 22-12-2004; that applications for its restoration were also dismissed on 16-11-2006 and 10-10-2007; that the petitioners assailed the said orders before the EDO(R), Faisalabad, by filing a revision which was also dismissed vide order dated 3-12-2008; that the petitioners again filed a revision before Member Board of Revenue, which was dismissed too on 6-5-2009; that the disputed award is a result of misconduct and the arbitrator travelled beyond his authority and jurisdiction while declaring the deceased Bahoo as 'Sunni" because the said chapter had been closed as the predecessor of the petitioners challenged the mutation of inheritance of deceased Bahoo which was attested by declaring him as `shia' and the said litigation ended against the predecessor of the petitioners and it attained finality and that respondent No,5 was appointed as arbitrator to resolve the controversy regarding the partition of the disputed land.
3. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether arbitrator award dated 1811-2006 was passed by arbitrator after hearing the parties and with authority and same is liable to be made rule of court? OPA
(2) Whether arbitrator award dated 18-11-2006 passed by arbitrator without authority? OPR
(3) Whether petitioners have no cause of action to file this petition? OPA
(4) Whether petition in hand is liable to be dismissed under order 7 rule 11 of C.P.C.? OPR
(5) Relief."
' One of the petitioner Najeeb Ullah, appeared as AW1, while Mohammad Iqbal as A.W.2, Abbas as A.W.3, whereas, respondents produced Muhammad Asghar, Advocate, as RW I and Ata Muhammad as R.W.2 in their oral evidence. The respondents also produced documentary evidence Exh.R1 to Exh.R7 including inheritance mutation and the copies of the orders of Revenue authorities and learned Civil Courts, which have been mentioned earlier.
4. After appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the petition filed under sections 14/17 of Arbitration Act vide judgment dated 20-6-2012. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned lower appellate court, who also dismissed the appeal vide his judgment dated 4-11-2013. Hence this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has argued that both the learned courts below have not considered legal aspect of the case and the impugned judgments being illegal are not maintainable; that the impugned judgments are reflective of misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the arbitrator announced the award according to the reference, which was referred to him by both the parties and both the learned courts below have wrongly decided that the award announced by, the arbitrator was delivered beyond the Reference; and that through the evidence available on the file, the award stood proved unrebutted and the evidence of respondents Nos.1 to 4 was neither consistent nor inspired and the suit and appeal were illegally dismissed by both the learned courts below without considering the evidence of the parties available on record.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. A perusal of the documents available on the file reveals that the petitioners vide document (Exh.A1) had appointed respondent No,5 as an arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties.
The document (Exh.A1) further reveals that there had been a dispute of land between the parties, which was required to be resolved through arbitration, whereas, vide document (Exh.A2) the respondents also appointed respondent No,5 as arbitrator and the perusal of it also reveals that the dispute of agricultural property was referred to the arbitrator for resolution. However, the award announced by the arbitrator depicts that he declared that Bahoo deceased was "Sunni". The perusal of the reference, which was executed by both the parties as stated above, did not disclose that there was any dispute regarding the sect of the deceased Bahoo to be resolved by the arbitrator. Both the learned courts below while rendering their findings on issue No,1 have rightly held that the arbitrator had been appointed on 4-8-2003, who announced his award after a lapse of more than three years i,e, on 18-1-2006 and also travelled beyond the reference by not deciding the dispute, which was referred to him, rather he himself declared deceased Bahoo was "Sunni" beyond the essence of the reference. The perusal of file also reveals that initially the revenue authorities had attested Mutation No,590 of inheritance of deceased Bahoo while considering him as `shia' and declaring the respondents to be the legal heirs of the said deceased, which remained intact in the revenue hierarchy. Thereafter, the petitioners assailed the said orders passed by the revenue hierarchy before the Civil Court by filing a suit for declaration, which was also dismissed.
Then the petitioners-plaintiffs again filed another suit for declaration before the learned Civil Court, which was also dismissed and to establish this fact the attested copies of the judgments are available on the file. So the dispute regarding the sect of Bahoo deceased had already been decided not only by the revenue courts, but also before the learned Civil Court.
8. In fact arbitration is an arrangement for the determination of a dispute between the parties by a person chosen by them. The essence of arbitration is the resolution of the dispute by a decision through a person acting as an arbitrator and not by, a court. The concept of arbitration is based upon withdrawing a dispute from the ambit of courts and providing a remedy to the parties to get settled their disputes through a person of their own choice. The arbitrator only and solely derives his jurisdiction and powers from the reference/agreement, which the parties specifically referred to him. The arbitrator has an arbitrary power to decide the sole referred dispute by the parties, while exercising his powers within the four- B corners of the dispute referred to him after conducting the proceeding as envisaged in the Arbitration Act. So there are three necessary ingredients, namely, existence of an arbitration agreement, existence of dispute purely under agreement and the proceedings conducted by the arbitrator. Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has defined "arbitration agreement" as under:-- 9.
"(a) 'arbitration agreement' means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not"
' In the present case, the parties had agreed that the dispute, which 'had arisen between them regarding the land be referred to respondent No,5, but the arbitrator travelled beyond the reference attributed to him. Further the petitioners neither produced the witnesses of the agreement for appointment of arbitrator nor arbitrator has been brought in the witness box by the petitioners. The petitioners themselves withheld the best evidence for the reason best known to them and under Article 129 (g) of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, inference is to be drawn against them. Even the record of the proceedings, if any, conducted by the arbitrator has also not been produced before the learned trial court by the petitioners. There is also no justification that why the arbitrator took a period of over 3 years to announce the award. Although, arbitration proceedings are considered to be sacred and no doubt sanctity has been given to said proceedings because such domestic tribunal can resolve the dispute in a befitting manner, but where the arbitrator did not take care of his jurisdiction while making the award against a party or he travelled beyond the reference and did not decide the dispute fairly and justly then no sanctity is attached to such proceedings or the award.
9. All such factors are sufficient to hold that the arbitrator committed misconduct and announced the award beyond his jurisdiction. Both the learned courts below after appreciating the evidence and merit of case have decided the matter eminently. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any perversity or the illegality in the impugned judgments warranting for any interference by this court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, which is only meant to correct the errors apparent on the face of the record and its scope is narrower. This Civil ' Revision having no merits is dismissed in limine.