' MUHAMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.--- The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement and perpetual injunction against the respondents, the said suit was pending disposal when the parties entered into an arbitration agreement and the Arbitrators were appointed, the Arbitrators submitted the award on 04.1.2010 before the court. On 19.1.2010 the learned trial court disposed of the suit on the basis of award submitted by the Arbitrators and made the award the part of record. The appellant has assailed the order dated 19.1.2010 through the present appeal.
2. Leaned counsel for appellant submits that the arbitrators have submitted the award before the court, the learned trial court thus was bound to provide opportunity of hearing to both the parties to raise any objection against the award and after deciding the objections the learned trial court was bound to make the award the rule of court which is only an executable decree. The impugned order is not executable order or decree in the eye of law, hence the award given by the Arbitrator could not be implemented.
3. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the party No,3 Bashir Ahmed, etc of the award have not been made party to the appeal, hence unless and until the party No,3 Bashir Ahmed, etc are not made party to the appeal, the appeal could not succeed.
4. Learned counsel for appellant pointed out that Bashir Ahmed, etc. Were not party to the suit and their names are not included in the decree sheet that is the reason they were not made party to the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
6. The appellant filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of an agreement dated 14.11.2000 and prayed a decree for perpetual injunction as well. During the pendency of Suit the parties to the suit entered into a compromise whereby they have appointed Arbitrators for resolution of their dispute. The Arbitrators so appointed heard three parties (1) the appellant, (2) the respondents and the third party Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Amin, Naeem Akhtar, Muhammad Saeem and Humayyun Saeed sons of Manzoor Ahmad and announced the award on 04.1.2010. The Arbitrators then submitted the award to the court, the court on receipt of award was bound to invite objections from the parties to the arbitration award and in case Bashir Ahmed, etc were not party to the suit, the learned trial court was within its power to implead them as party to the suit, the learned trial court after deciding the objections if filed by the parties was to make the award the rule of court, the rule of court alone is an executable order or decree, hence the learned trial court has erred in law while disposing of the suit in terms of arbitration award without making the award the rule of court.
7. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order dated 19.1.2010 and remand the case to learned trial court with the direction that the learned trial court will allow the parties to file objections on the award, the learned trial court will also implead Bashir Ahmed, Muhammad Amin, Naeem Akhtar, Muhammad Saleem and Humayyun Saeed sons of Manzoor Ahmed mentioned as party No,3 in the award, the party to the suit. After entertaining the objections the learned trial court will decide the objections and will either set aside the award or make the award as rule of court.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned trial court on 15.2.2016. The appeal is allowed in the above said terms.