' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This appeal has been preferred under section 39(iv) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with section 96 of C.P.C. From the judgment dated 20-12-2010, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Peshawar accepted the application under section 20 of the Act, ibid, and referred the matter to the Arbitrator.
2. Brief facts of the appeal are that Messrs Heavy Mechanical Complex (Pvt.) Ltd., (hereinafter called as appellant), was awarded "Design/Fabrication and Erection/Installation of a Penstock for Malakand-III HPP" through letter of Acceptance dated 12-11-2003. In this regard, a contract was executed with Sarhad Hydel- Development Organization (SHYDO). The dispute arose between the parties,- inter alia, as to the fair entitlement of the respondent-company under various clauses of the contract. Despite exchange of several letters, no consensus could be reached on the dispute between the parties, thus by invoking the Arbitration Clause contained in the contract agreement, the respondent- . Company moved an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for referring the matter in respect of dispute between the parties in terms of the said Arbitration Clause. This application was contested by the appellant-Organization and vide order dated 20-12- 2010, the application was accepted and the matter in dispute was referred to arbitrator. Hon'ble Mr.Justice (Rtd) Shahzad Akbar Khan was appointed as Arbitrator, to conduct the arbitration in accordance with law and to submit his award within a period of two months and the date was fixed for submission of award as 21-2-2011. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant filed the instant appeal under section 39(4) of the Arbitration Act, challenging the validity of impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
3. The respondent-company was awarded contract through a valid contract agreement. It is clear from the contents of provision contained in clauses 50.1 to 50.5 of the said agreement that if a dispute arises between the parties, then both the parties should resolve their dispute through arbitration, under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The respondent-company has preferred an application under section 20 of Arbitration Act, to resolve the dispute through Arbitration Clause and the lower Court was left with no option but to allow the application under section 20, to resolve the dispute through arbitrator.
4. It is well settled that, once the parties agreed to decide their dispute in a particular manner, then they must surrender themselves to the forum voluntary chosen by them. The respondent approached the competent Court of law by filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, for the reference of dispute to the Arbitrator in terms of clauses 50-1 to 50-5 of the agreement.
5. This Court has noticed that the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, cause of action and bar of jurisdiction was decided by the learned Trial Court vide order No.7 dated 27-11-2010 and the appellant had not challenged the same in any forum, thus the same has attained finality.
6. In the instant appeal, no plausible objection has been raised about the legality of the impugned order nor regarding integrity, veracity or competency of the arbitrator appointed by the Court. No final award has been submitted in the Court and it is premature to make any observation in this regard.
' Under the circumstances, this appeal having no merits is dismissed being misconceived.