MALIK INAYAT-UR-RAHMAN, JJ--Through, the instant civil revision petition the petitioner has assailed the impugned judgment / decree dated 04.9.2020 passed by the learned touring Additional District Judge Gilgit in C.F.A. No. 45/2019, whereby the learned first appellate Court has dismissed the civil first appeal of the present petitioner by upholding the judgment/order of the learned trial Court dated 01.4.2019.
2. Brief facts necessary for decision of the instant revision petition arc that the present petitioner/plaintiff had filed a Civil Suit No. 47/2019 before the learned Civil Judge Danyore Gilgit against the present respondents/defendants for declaration along with permanent injunction to the effect that plaintiff is sub-distributor of defendants/distributors and defendants have wrongly and ex-parte cancelled the sub-distributorship, hence the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants and the suit was contested by the defendants and the suit was fixed for arguments on maintainability and after hearing arguments of both the parties, the learned Civil Judge Danyore vide impugned judgment/order dated 1.4.2020 rejected the Civil Suit No. 47/7019 of the plaintiff under Order VII, Rule 11(D), C.P.C.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied from the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner filed a civil first appeal which is denied by the learned touring District Judge Gilgit. The learned first appellate Court after hearing arguments pro and contra, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff vide judgment/decree dated 04.09.2020 declaring it meritless and imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner/plaintiff, hence the instant revision petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that both the impugned judgments/orders passed by the learned courts below are contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned Judgments/ orders are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. He further argued that both the learned courts below have passed the judgments/orders in a hasty and unlawful manner and have committed material irregularity while passing the impugned judgments/orders/decrees, hence the same are not maintainable and liable to set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff argued that according to C.P.C., for rejection of Suit, recording of evidence is mandatory provision, but the learned trial court without recording of evidence rejected the civil suit in hurry and haste. He lastly prayed that by accepting the instant revision petition, both the judgments/decrees/orders passed by the learned lower courts dated 04.09.2020 and 01.04.2020 may be set aside and the case may be remanded back to the learned trial court for decision on merits in the interest of justice, law and equity.
5. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that it is clearly ascribed in the clause 16.1 of the agreement that in case of differences during or after the agreement arising between the master distributor and sub-distributors shall be referred to an arbitrator duly appointed under the Arbitration Act, 1940, hence the suit was barred under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, therefore, the impugned judgments / decrees / orders passed by the learned lower courts are fully justified and liable to be upheld. The learned-counsel for the respondents further submitted that no suit shall lie on any ground whatsoever for a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, nor shall any arbitration agreement or award be set aside. He lastly requested to dismiss the revision petition declaring it meritless.
6. I have analyzed the entire material placed before me in the light of valuable assistance provided by the. learned counsel for the parties.
7. From perusal of record it 'transpires that the petitioner and respondents had entered into an agreement and the petitioner got sub-distributorship from respondents/master distributors for Hunza-Nagar Districts since, 2012 and the Sub-Distributorship Agreement between the petitioner and respondents is accepted by both the parties and they admitted the existence of arbitration clause in para No.16 of the agreement wherein it is stated as under:- 16.1. Both the parties hereby agree that, all disputes, differences and questions in respect of any matter under this agreement, whether during the term of this agreement, or any renewals thereof, or after the expiry of this agreement, arising between the Master Distributor and the Sub- Distributor shall be referred to an arbitrator duly appointed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 (as amended), and the arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding on the parties. "
8. In the light of 'the above referred clause of agreement, I feel that both the impugned judgments/orders of the learned lower courts have been passed on the basis of correct appreciation of relevant law and any illegality having been committed by the lower courts has not been pointed out. The impugned judgments / orders / decrees of both the Courts below do not carry any jurisdictional error and illegality and are based on correct appreciation of law and facts.
It is established law that the findings of the fact/law recorded concurrently by the Courts below usually cannot be interfered/upset by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
9. Upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition along with C. Misc. No. 468/2020, having no legal force fail and are hereby dismissed in limine, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. File.