ATHAR MINALLAH, HCJ.--- Through this consolidated order I shall decide the instant petition alongwith FAO No. 122/2019 titled "Capital Development Authority v. M/s. Habib Rafiq (Pvt.) Ltd., etc."
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Capital Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "Authority") invited applications on 19.11.2009 through an advertisement published in the daily `Dawn" for prequalification of contractors/firms for construction of additional family suites for parliamentarians in Sector G-5/2, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the "Project"). M/s. Habib Rafiq (Pvt.) Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor'') prequalified and, therefore, Letter of Intent, dated 12.02.2011, was duly issued. In 2015 the Contractor filed a civil suit because' disputes had arisen between the parties out of and in connection with their contractual obligations. The parties agreed to refer the disputes to an arbitrator subject to withdrawal of the suit which had been filed by the Contractor. The suit was, therefore, withdrawn and the parties consented to appointment of Justice (Rtd) Nasir Aslam Zahid as the sole "Arbitrator". On conclusion of the arbitration proceedings "Award" was announced on 20.08.2018. The "Award" was filed before a competent Court at Islamabad on 11.08.2018. The Contractor had also filed a petition under section 20 of the Act of 1940 on 09.12.2016. The learned trial Court vide order, dated 01.11.2017 ordered the disputes to be referred to the "Arbitrator". Justice (Rtd) Nasir Aslam Zahid was. duly appointed as the "Arbitrator". The Authority filed FAO No. 122/2019, on 03.07.2019 challenging order, dated 01.112017.
Alongwith the appeal, an application was also filed seeking condonation of delay. It is important to note that the Authority had also filed an application which was dismissed vide order, dated.
23.07.2018. The Authority has assailed the latter order in Civil Revision No. 264/2018.
3. The learned counsel for the Authority has argued that the order, dated 01.11.2017 was passed without lawful authority and jurisdiction because the petition filed under section 20 of the Act of 1940 was not heard and rather an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") was fixed for hearing. The learned counsel for the Authority has further argued that order, dated 23.07.2018 has been passed without taking into consideration the crucial fact that the Contractor had not disclosed the nature of disputes.
4. The learned counsels have been heard and the record perused with their able assistance.
5. Admitted facts are that the Contractor had filed a petition under section 20 of the Act of 1940 on 09.07.2016. The disputes were mentioned in the petition filed by the Contractor under section 20 of the Act of 1940. The Authority had joined the proceedings and vide order, dated 01.11.2017, "Arbitrator" was appointed. The proceedings also commenced before the Arbitrator. The Authority did not assail the order, dated 01-10-2017. Moreover, the application filed by the Authority, which was dismissed vide order, dated 23.07.2018 had raised grounds that were alien to the scheme of the Act of 1940. It clearly reflected intent of wriggling out of the arbitration proceedings on the basis of unreasonable 'grounds. No plausible explanation was given for failure to assail the order, dated 01- 11-2017, within the time prescribed tinder the law. The appeal filed by the Authority is time-barred and no convincing reason has been stated for removal of the "Arbitrator", namely Justice (Rtd)
Nasir Aslam Zahid. In the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the conduct of the Authority is deprecated because attempts are being made on frivolous grounds to discredit the arbitration proceedings. It is obvious from the conduct of the Authority that unnecessary applications were filed merely to delay the arbitration proceedings.
6. For the above reasons, the instant petition and the appeal are declared to be devoid of merit and, therefore, accordingly dismissed.