' M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-9-2012 passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Jhelum and judgment and decree dated 4-1- 2014 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Jhelum.
2. Brief facts to the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and cancellation with consequential relief and suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The respondents appeared before the court and filed an application under section-34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for stay of proceedings and for arbitration in terms of Clause-VI of the rent agreement between the parties.
The learned Civil Judge accepted the application and referred the matter for decision by Director Military Lands, Lahore through order dated 1-2-2011. Thereafter, the suit was restored upon the application of the petitioner and the case was fixed for submission of objections upon the Award; but the petitioner instead of filing the objections, filed an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C.
For amendment of the plaint, which was dismissed on 12-12-2011. The petitioner filed the objections to the Award dated 9-9-2011 on 19-1-2012. The objections filed by the petitioner were dismissed being barred by time and judgment and decree was passed in terms of the Award dated 9-9-2011.
The appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree was also dismissed on 4-1- 2014, hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while advancing his arguments submitted that no notice had been issued to the petitioner in terms of section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and both the courts below have erred in law while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the issuance of notice was sine qua non and no limitation would run against the petitioner, as the trial court had not issued a notice. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Col (Retd) Muhammad Aslam v. Haji Muhammad Shaft and another (PLD 1993 Lahore- 11).
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It is a matter of record that after referring the matter to arbitration on 1-2-2011, the suit was adjourned sine die. It was upon the application of the petitioner dated 21-9-2011 that the suit was restored and thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 31-10- 2011 which was dismissed on 29-11-2011 and the objections were filed thereafter on 12-12-2011. It is a matter of record that the Award was announced on 9-9-2011. The petitioner was in the knowledge of the Award dated 9-9-2011, as after the announcement of Award, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of the suit on 21-9-2011 and it has been specifically mentioned in para-2 of the application that the Director Military Lands has announced the decision against the petitioner and thereafter, the application was filed for amendment of the plaint on 22-10-2011 and it has been specifically mentioned in Para-2 of the application that the Arbitrator has announced his Award on 9-9-2011 and an amendment was sought in the plaint for challenging the Award dated 9-9-2011. All these facts lead me to an irresistible conclusion that the petitioner had knowledge of the Award dated 9-9-2011. It has been held by the Division Bench in a judgment reported in Messrs Shafi Corporation Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan through Director General of Defence Purchase, Ministry of Defence, Karachi (PLD 1994 Karachi-127) that where a party had knowledge of filing of Award in the Court, further notice need not be issued to it by the Court and informing about filing of the Award and objections to the Award should have been filed within 30 days from starting point of limitation-i,e, date of knowledge.
6. To my mind, the concept of issuance of notice under section 14 of the Arbitration Act is to enable the parties to file their objections, if any, within described period of time and where the fact of filing of award is in the knowledge of the party, as in the present case, there was no requirement to give notice under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the Court.
7. Article-158 of Limitation Act, 1908 provides a period of 30 days for filing of objections to the Award from the date of knowledge.
8. There 'is a material distinction between subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 1 of the Arbitration Act. Subsection (1) cast a duty upon the Arbitrator to give a notice of filing of Award, whereas, subsection (2) relates to the powers of the Court to give notice to the party bringing it to the knowledge of factum of filing of Award and it has been- held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Late Mst. Majeedan Thr. Lrs v. Late Muhammad Naseem (2001 SC3-96) that such a notice can even be given orally. As observed by me that the concept of notice is only to inform the parties of filing of Award. In the present case, the petitioner was in the knowledge of the Award, when he filed an application for restoration of the suit and subsequently for amendment of the plaint
9. Since the petitioner had knowledge of announcement of Award dated 9-9-2011, when he filed an application for restoration of the suit on 21-9-2011 by specifically mentioning that the Award has been announced against the petitioner and thereafter filing an application for amendment in the plaint, in which, the petitioner sought an amendment in the plaint' for challenging the Award dated 9-9-2011. It has been rightly observed by both the courts below that the objections filed by the petitioner on 12-12-2011 were barred under Article 158 of the Limitation Act.
10. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to exercise my revisional powers, as both the courts below have not committed any material irregularity while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. Resultantly, revision petition is dismissed in limine.