' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 29-10-2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment/ order dated 15-1-2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge Gujranwala, whereby an application filed by the petitioner under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for making the award rule of the Court was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 21-5-2001, the petitioner filed an application under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala, for a direction to respondents Nos.2 to 4 to submit the award in Court with further prayer that the award be made rule of the Court. The application was resisted with the assertion that even in the reference the matter of reference was not clear and further the alleged award is result of fraud and misrepresentation of respondents Nos.2 to 4 with the petitioner. The learned trial Court framed the issues, invited the parties to produce their respective evidence, both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence and vide judgment/order dated 15-1-2008, the learned trial Court was pleased to reject the application. Appeal was preferred and vide judgment and decree dated 29-10-2008, the learned 1st Appellate Court was also pleased to dismiss the appeal, hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner has proved through evidence produced by him that the award is liable to be made rule of the Court. Both the Courts below fell in error while rejecting the application as well as dismissing the appeal. Prays for acceptance of the revision petition and by setting aside the judgments passed by both the Courts below award be made rule of the Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argue that the matter of reference is not clear. Actually the suit property was purchased by respondent No,1 through registered sale deed and the same was rented out to the petitioner through Liaqat Ali, property dealer. After the death of Liaqat Ali the petitioner stopped paying rent to respondent No,1, therefore, for settlement of issue of eviction as well as payment of rent the matter was referred but in the reference actual matter of reference has not been noted. Further that the award is fraudulent, the arbitrators have mis- conducted, the award is beyond the scope of reference and respondent No,1 was never heard and further two arbitrators appointed by respondent No,1 were also not joined in the alleged proceedings of award.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through ;the record. According to the reference two arbitrators were appointed by each party and the fifth by both the parties. The petitioner has not produced the two arbitrators appointed by him and the alleged award does not contain the signatures of the arbitrators appointed by respondent No, 1 . Respondents Nos.2 to 4, the arbitrators, filed their consenting reply in the Court on 3-12-2001, with the signatures of Haji Muhammad A Yaqoob but subsequently Sakhi Muhammad, one of the arbitrators, filed an affidavit in the Court on 12-1-2003, that by misrepresentation against "my will" my thumb impression and signature have been obtained fraudulently on the stamp paper and wrong award has been filed in the Court. I have noticed that out of five arbitrators, the award does not contain the signatures of two arbitrators appointed by respondent No,1, as per case of respondent No,1 they were not joined in the proceedings of arbitration and even respondent No,1 was not allowed to plead his case.
When the arbitrators did not act honestly in accordance with the reference any award announced by the arbitrators beyond the scope of reference or by misconduct cannot be made rule of the Court by the Court. Reliance can be placed on Dhooli Atchayya and another v. Dhooli Peddenti and others (AIR 1928 Madras 983 (I), Chhaganlal Asaram v. Jeevanlal Gangabisan and others (AIR 1954 Nagpur 263), J. Kuppuswa mi Chetty v. B. V. Anantharamier and another (AIR (35) 1948 Madras 40), Ghulain Muhammad v. Ghulam Abbas and 2 others (2007 YLR 1608) and Abdullah and 5 others v.
Abdur Rehman and 9 others (2004 YLR 295). The alleged arbitration proceedings clearly show that the alleged award has been filed in the Court which is result of misconduct by the arbitrators, who have filed the same in Court. When out of five arbitrators two arbitrators have not joined the proceedings and writing in the award that the award is unanimous, is against the facts. In this view of the matter, when there are concurrent findings recorded by the two Courts below which are based upon the evidence available on the file, the same need no interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C., therefore, this revision petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.