' By filing the instant civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.10.2001 passed by the learned trial Court whereby objections filed by the petitioner under Sections 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 were dismissed as well as the judgment dated 4.3.2005 delivered by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhelum by virtue of which the appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a contract for the collection of octroi/Tehsil Tax for the year 1992-93 was auctioned by the petitioner to Respondent No, 1 against the highest bid amounting to Rs, 8,76,000/-. As per clausel 4 of the agreement settled between the parties Respondent No, 1/contractor was to admit any increase in the lease amount to be made by the petitioner and admittedly the increase in the lease amount was made by the petitioner who reassessed the rate and demanded the same from the respondent/contractor, which became a bone of contention .Between the parties. Then as per clause 15 of the agreement, Respondent No, 1 referred the matter to the arbitrator/Respondent No, 2 for its resolution, who announced his Award on 8.1.1994 and re- determined the enhanced fixation initially determined by petitioner. The petitioner submitted objections under Section 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which were concurrently dismissed by both the Courts below vide impugned order and judgment referred in Para-1 ante.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator/Respondent No, 2 without issuance of any notice had announced the Award. He also mooted that arbitrator/Respondent No, 2 was bound to give reasons for the Award but the said Award was totally silent in this regard, but both the Courts below without considering the said aspect of the case passed the impugned order and judgment. He has lastly prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and judgment while acceptance of the instant civil revision.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 has supported the impugned order and judgment passed by the Courts below and prayed for dismissal of the, instant civil revision.
5. Arguments heard and recorder perused.
6. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the arbitrator without summoning the petitioner had announced the Award is misconceived. The learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 has drawn the attention of this Court towards the interlocutory orders maintained by the arbitrator/Respondent No, 2, the attested copy whereof is available at pages-134 to 136, which reveals the presence of representative of the petitioner before the said arbitrator/Respondent No, 2 on each and every occasion. The learned counsel for the petitioner after perusal of said interlocutory orders has remained unable to refute the stance of the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 that the arbitrator before announcement of Award had not only summoned the petitioner rather his representative also joined the proceedings on each and every date. Even the perusal of Award reveals that petitioner was present before the arbitrator on the said date when the Award was announced.
7. The other ground of attack of learned counsel for the petitioner that Award was without reasoning is also misconceived. The, arbitrator after conducting his proceedings in a judicial manner announced an elaborated and comprehensive Award (Exh.A3). The arbitrator who was an officer of the Local Government had no nexus with Respondent No, 1 rather he himself was a functionary of the Local Government to which the petitioner is also an organ. The present petitioner by signing lease agreement with Respondent No, 1 of his own accord had agreed for appointment of Respondent No, 2 as arbitrator to resolve the dispute if arose between the parties. The petitioner has remained unsuccessful to refute the claim of Respondent No, 1/contractor not only before the arbitrator rather before the Courts below. The main arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner today at bar are not found to be supported by the record available on the file. The learned counsel for the petitioner has remained unable to point out any infirmity or perversity and jurisdictional defect in the impugned order and judgment passed by the Courts below. Resultantly, the instant civil revision being devoid of any force is dismissed.