M UHAM M AD TARIO AFRIDI, J.- This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 11.3.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Bannu, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.9.2023, of the learned Civil Judge-XIV, Bannu, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the respondent/plaintiff instituted Civil Suit No.58/1 of 2017 for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- against the petitioner/defendant on the basis of an arbitration decision dated 22.07.2017. The petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and recorded evidence. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned Civil Judge-XIV, Bannu, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 14.02.2023.
3. Subsequently, the respondent/decree-holder filed an execution petition. During the pendency thereof, the petitioner/judgment-debtor deposited Rs.50,000/-on 06.03.2024 as part payment of the decretal amount. He then moved an application seeking permission to pay the balance amount in monthly installments of Rs.5,000/-, but the learned Executing Court allowed him to pay Rs.25,000/- per month. In compliance, he deposited Rs.25,000/- on 07.06.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an objection petition in the execution proceedings, asserting that the decree was based on an arbitration award and that the respondent could only have applied for making the said award a rule of the Court; hence, the suit was not maintainable, the trial Court lacked jurisdiction, and the decree was a nullity. He, therefore, prayed that the execution proceedings be consigned to the record room. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objection petition vide order dated 06.09.2023. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which too met the same fate and was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Bannu, through judgment dated 11.03.2025. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court through the instant civil revision petition.
4. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner heard and the record perused with his able assistance.
5. The petitioner contends that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and hear the suit for recovery of Rs.8,00,000/- based on the "Faisla Salisi" dated 22.07.2017, and that the respondent's appropriate recourse would have been to file an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. I am not convinced by this argument on two key grounds: (i) the decree based on the "Faisla Salisi" has attained finality and is not subject to challenge during execution proceedings; and (ii)
The "Faisla Salisi" in question does not qualify as an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, as there is no evidence of a valid arbitration agreement between the parties as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, which states: "2(a) 'Arbitration agreement' means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration, whether an arbitrator is named therein or not."
Likewise, the "Faisla Salisi" also fails to qualify as an award under Section 2(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, which defines: "2(b) 'Award' means an arbitration award."
6. An arbitration award, in legal contemplation, must be rendered pursuant to a valid arbitration agreement under the statutory framework. In the absence of such an agreement, the "Faisla Salisi" cannot be enforced as an award under the Act. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the Arbitration Act, 1940 is legally misconceived and devoid of force.
7. The record reveals that the petitioner did not challenge the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge-XIV, Bannu, whereby the respondent's suit was decreed on the basis of the arbitration decision. The said decree, having not been assailed through an appeal in accordance with law, has attained finality. It is a settled proposition of law that an Executing Court cannot go behind the decree nor can it examine its legality or propriety. Once a decree has attained finality, the Executing Court is bound to execute it in its present form and has no jurisdiction to reopen or revisit the merits of the case leading to the decree. The objection petition filed by the petitioner was, in effect, an attempt to challenge the validity of the decree in execution proceedings, which is not permissible under the law.
8. Both the learned Executing Court and the Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner, being devoid of legal substance. This Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, finds no illegality, material irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference.
9. In view of the above discussion, the instant revision petition being meritless is hereby dismissed in limine.