Through this petition the petitioner prayed as under: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that keeping in view of the above submission the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.06.2013, passed by Judicial Magistrate-IX/Civil Judge, Quetta and Judgment/decree dated 26.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge-1, Quetta may kindly be set-aside, the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 may kindly be dismissed, in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/respondent filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (the Act, 1940) for making award dated 31.09.2011 as Rule the Court before the Judicial Magistrate-IX/Civil Judge Quetta (trial Court) stated that the applicant purchased a Plot No. 68 in Faryal Housing Scheme launched by Respondent No. 1, situated at Mouza Shaikhmanda Tappa Balali, Tehsil & District Quetta in the year 1987 on instalment basis. After payment of instalment the Respondent No. 1 transferred the Plot No. 68 vide memo No. 232 in the name of applicant. In the year 2009 the Respondent No. 2 started construction work on the plot of applicant. On inquiry the Respondent No. 2 produced the documents of the plot in question which pertains to year 2001, which were executed between the Respondent No. 1 and one Syed Muhammad Naeem. On 07.05.2010 the applicant and Respondent No. 1 & 2 agreed to settled their dispute through arbitration and appointed Respondent No. 3 as sole arbitrator. After hearing of both the parties, the arbitrator announced the award on 31.05.2011 in written form, signed by the parties. In case of non-abiding the terms and condition of award and in default either party will pay Rs. 5 million damages to the other party and now the Respondent No. 1 is delaying the matter on one and another pretext.
3. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 filed rejoinder contested the application raised legal objection while Respondent No. 3 conceded the application.
4. The trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and after having the evidence produced by the parties, allowed the application vide judgment dated 10th June, 2013 and the award passed by the arbitration was made rule of the Court and the parties are directed to comply the same.
5. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 filed appeal before the Additional District Judge-I, Quetta (appellate Court) which was dismissed vide judgment dated 26th December, 2013. Hence this petition with the prayer as mentioned above.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner stated that the judgments of both the Courts below are contrary to law and fact based on presumption and supposition. Under Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, the Court has to state the reason for the award in sufficient detail. The Courts below passed the judgment clearly violated Section 14 of the Act and Article 178 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff/respondent has not issued notice to defendant which is mandatory, whereas the suit has been filed beyond limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following case laws: 2017 YLR 301, 2020 CLC 1605, 2013 CLD 719, 2018 SCMR 662
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 stated that the judgment passed by both the Courts below are well reasoned. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited. There is no illegality or irregularity in the concurrent finding of the Courts below.
8. Heard. Perused the record. The record transpires that the Respondent No. 1/applicant filed application for making award dated 31.05.2011 Rule of the Court. The arbitration agreement defined in section-2 clause (a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which reads as under:
(a) arourauon agreement means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration, whether an arbitrator is named therein or not;
9. An arbitration agreement is an agreement between the parties, which required that the same should be executed with the free consent of the parties competent to contract. The clause-a of Section 2 of the Act, 1940 provides the opportunities to the parties to settle the dispute through arbitration. The decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on both the parties. Section 2(b) of the Act, 1940 defines the award as under: "(b) Award means an arbitration award.
10. If a dispute is referred to a person and he decides that dispute by holding inquiry reached to a decision then undoubtedly what that person decide would constitute award. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Dr. Khalida Malik v. Mst. Farida Malik 1994 MLD 2348, whereby it has been held as under: "An award is an adjudication and decision by the arbitrator or arbitrators upon the matter or issues as referred to it in the agreement. It is thus final determination of the his between the parties who according to their own concurrence authorised the arbitrators to finally settle their dispute through arbitration. An award is not necessarily a reasoned judicial decision giving detailed reasons for the arbitrator's conclusions. However, "it is an intelligible decision which defines the right of the parties, in relation to the subject-matter of the reference is of that is required". The arbitrators are not bound to state as I to why they came to such conclusion, until it is provided in the reference. It is not necessary for the arbitrators to give detailed reasons. What is important in this respect is whether the arbitrators gave a decision finally determining the issues or not and if it is found that the award is consonance with reference and is an intelligible decision of the terms of reference it cannot be set aside. Mere fact that the arbitrators in the present case concluded proceedings in presence of the parties only in one sitting shall not provide a ground to set aside the same or to term it something else than an award."
11. The object of arbitration proceedings is to curtail period of litigation and to encourage resolution of conflicts through judge of their own choice. The arbitrator(s) are not strictly bound by rule of technicalities. The rule of Court is the scheme of Arbitration Act is supervisory character and is not akin to appellate power under the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance is placed on the case of Champsay ghara & Company v. Jivrajh Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company (AIR 1923 PC 66), whereby it has been held as under:- "Where a cause of matters in difference is referred to an arbitrator, whether a lawyer or a layman, he is constituted the sole and final Judge of all questions both of law and of fact. The only exceptions to that rule are cases where the award is the result of corruption or fraud, and one other, which though it is to be regretted is now, firmly established, viz. where the question of law necessarily arises on the face of the award or upon some paper accompanying and forming part of the award.
An error in law on the face of the award means that you can find in the award or a document actually incorporated thereto as for instance, a note appended by the arbitrator stating the reasons for his judgment some legal proposition which is the basis of the award and which you can then say is erroneous."
12. Reliance is also placed on the case of Mian Corporation through Managing Partner versus Messrs Lever Brothers of Pakistan Ltd. through General Sales Manager, Karachi PLD 2006 SC 169, whereby it has been observed as under: "7. Learned counsel attempted to persuade us to examine the merits of the claim of the petitioner involving disputed questions of fact. It is well-settled that the arbitrator acts in a quasi-judicial manner and his decision is entitled to utmost respect and weight, unless the misconduct is not only alleged, but also proved against him to the satisfaction of the Court. The arbitration award may however, be discarded, if the findings are contrary to law and the material on record. Learned counsel has been unable to pinpoint any inherent legal infirmity or defector want of jurisdiction on the part with the arbitrator who has elaborately dealt with the claim of the petitioner in minute details with reference to the explanation furnished by the respondent-Company. Suffice it to observe that while examining the award, the Court does not sit in appeal over the award and has to satisfy itself that the award does not run counter to the settled principles of law and the material available on record. Indeed, an arbitrator is final judge on the questions of law and facts and it is not open to a party to challenge the decision, if it is otherwise valid. If an arbitrator has made an award in terms of the submissions made before him, no adverse inference can be drawn against him. An award cannot be lawfully disturbed on the premise that a different view was possible, if the facts were appreciated from a different angle. In fact, Court while examining the correctness and legality of award does not act as a Court of appeal and cannot undertake reappraisal of evidence recorded by an arbitrator in order to discover the error or infirmity in the award. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v.
Mustafa Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2003 SC 301, which fully supports the impugned judgment as well as the view taken by us in this petition."
13. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 14 of the Act, 1940 as under:
14. Award to be signed and filed. (I) When the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof, and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award.
(2) The arbitrators or umpire shall, at the request of any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the Court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of filing the award, cause the award or signed copy of it, together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them, to be filed in Court, and the Court shall thereupon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award.
(3) Where die arbitrators or umpire state a special case under clause (b) of Section 13, the Court, after giving notice to the parties and hearing them, shall pronounce its opinion thereon and such opinion shall' be added to, and shall form part of the award.
14. The object of requirement to serve notice is to enable the parties to file their objections or to move the Court for setting aside the award. In AIR 1984 Gujrat 114 it was held that "these provisions are not mandatory and their breach does not vitiate the award."
15. It appeared from the record that the Respondent No. 2 was appointed sole arbitrator by consent of the parties. The parties appeared before the arbitrator, took part in arbitration proceedings without any objection. The sole arbitrator prepared award signed by the parties without any protest. It is settled preposition when a party had appeared to the proceeding of arbitrator without any protest the award, signed the same, subsequently cannot question the validity of award that award was made beyond statutory period of limitation. As per aforementioned sections, the procedure in filing award is ministerial act. Provision of Arbitration is a selection by parties for an early/expedites solution of their dispute and dispense with technicalities of law. Reliance is placed on the case of Besrock (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation 2013 CLP 719, whereby it has been held as under:
11. The brief history of the arbitration law clearly shows that words "date of service of the notice of the making of award" have technical meaning attached to them and can only mean the notice provided by Section 14 of the Arbitration Act i.e. notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing of the award mere fact that parties had the knowledge of the fact that the award had been made or the fact that they had signed the award would not start the time running under Article 178 of the Limitation Act. The critical reading of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act makes it perfectly clear that after an award is given, any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under such party may request the arbitrator or umpire to cause the award or its signed copy thereof together any disposition or documents which may have been taken and proved to be filed in Court. No limitation has been provided by the Limitation Act for any party to the arbitration agreement to request the arbitrator or umpire to cause the award to be filed in Court nor is there any limitation prescribed in the Limitation Act for arbitrator or umpire to cause the award to be filed in Court upon such request. If a parly to the arbitration agreement does make a request to the arbitrator or umpire it can directly come to the Court and request it to order arbitrator or the umpire to file the award or a signed copy thereto. Such application will be governed by Article 178 of the Limitation Act, if notice of the award has been given as provided under subsection (1) of Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, but if no notice is given then the only request which would be attracted is to be residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, which provides a party three years from the date when right to apply accrues. The object of Section 14(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 relates to notice of the making of award is only to inform the parties that the award has been made so that they may file application for filing of the award. Such application is to be filed within 90 days of the service of the notice of the making of award under Article 178 of the Limitation Act. Similarly, the object of giving notice of the filing of award is to enable the parties to file an application for setting aside of the award. Such application has to be made under Article 158 of the Limitation Act within 30 days of the service of notice of the award. Reference can be made to PLD 1960 (W.P) Lahore 591 (Muhammad Shaft and others v. Muhammad Sabir and others) and PLD 1960 (W.P) Lahore 601 (Sh. Maboob Alam v. Sh. Mumtaz Ahmad). "
16. Sanctity is attached to the award which cannot be brush aside until and unless it is shown that the arbitrator or Umpire has misconducted himself or that award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid in terms of Section 30 of the Act. It is settled principle of law that while making an award the rule of Court, the Court has to examine the validity of award in a limited scope.
17. The High Court has a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings arrived by the Courts below while exercising power u/S. 115 of the CPC. The interference in revisional jurisdiction can be made only in the cases in which order or judgment rendered by the subordinate Courts are found to be perverse or suffering from jurisdictional error or defeet of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence and conclusion. Reliance is placed on the case of 2022 SCMR 933.
18. The case law relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable, as each case has its own peculiar facts.
In view of the above circumstances, the petition being devoid of merit is dismissed with no order as to cost.