' HAIDER ALI KHAN, J.---Through instant revision petition, the petitioners have called in the question order and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bannu and that of order of the learned Civil Judge-XI, Bannu whereby the latter dismissed the application for granting rule of the Court and the former maintained the same order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that there was a dispute between the parties over agricultural land and verkha jaat. To settle the said dispute, arbitrators were appointed who after hearing the parties paying visit to the disputed site, decided the matter vide arbitration agreement dated 12.9.2012. The petitioners, after refusal from implementation of the arbitration decision by the respondents Nos.1 to 5, filed application for making the verdict of arbitrators as rule of the Court.
3. Respondents were summoned who appeared and contested the application by submitting their written reply. They also submitted an application for rejection of the plaint due to non- maintainability which was accepted and resultantly the application of petitioners for making it as rule of the Court was dismissed. Aggrieved from the said order the petitioners preferred a civil appeal before the learned Additional District Judge-I, Bannu which met the same fate vide its order dated 08.7.2014, hence the present civil revision.
4. Arguments heard and file perused.
5. According to section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, after announcement of the award, it is the arbitrator who has to file the award in the Court either at the request of a party or on the direction of the Court. The Court will then give notice to the parties of the filing of award and thereafter the Court has to see whether the same could be made rule of the Court or not. The Court for the purpose of making the award rule of the Court is not required to act mechanically as if it has to affix its stamp of approval on the award without determining its legality, maintainability and the question of its excitability. In the present circumstances it can be safely held that a party cannot file an award in the Court to make the same rule of the Court especially when the award prior to getting the authentication and sanction of the Court, is .Acted upon between the parties. No doubt law favours adjudication upon merit after exhausting the principles of natural justice but at the same time when the law requires a thing to be done in a certain and particular manner it should be done in that manner.
6. In view of the above, it is held that concurrent findings as recorded by both the learned Courts below especially of the learned appellate Court is very convincing and more elaborative which warrants no interference.
7. For the reasons discussed above, the petition being meritless is hereby dismissed.