' KHIZAR HAYAT, J.-This is an application for review of our order dated 12th October, 1982, in F.A.O. No, 42/1982.
2. We dismissed appeal of the appellant under section 30 (i) (vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the order of Additional Administrative Civil Judge, Multan refusing to set aside award holding that since the objections filed against the award were barred by limitation no ground existed to interfere with the order, dated 25th September, 1982, of the learned trial Judge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants us to review that order on account of mistake apparent on the face of the record. The submission made is that the award on which the decree is based was void and could not be made rule of Court for more than one reason. It has been contended that the arbitration agreement between the parties and the evidence recorded by the arbitrator had not been filed in Court with the award, that even if filing of the arbitration agreement in Court was not necessary an oral agreement had to be proved which was not done, that the award had not been exhibited and the Court could not look into it, that the award was not proved in Court by examining the arbitrator to enable the present applicant to cross-examine the arbitrator and the decree was against rule of natural justice, and that the award being a registrable document relating to immovable property it was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.
4. The application of respondents was made under section 14 (p) of the Arbitration Act. According to the provisions contained in the said Act the Court was to exercise power under sections 15 and 16 of the said Act and in case the award was not to be modified or corrected on the grounds given in section 15 or it was not required to be permitted to the arbitrator for reconsideration on the grounds enumerated in sub-clause (a), (b), (c) of clause (i) of section 16 thereof the Court was to proceed and pronounce the judgment under section 17 of the said Act. In this case petitioner had notice of filing of award on 31st March, 1981 and filed objections to the award in the Court on 5th May, 1981 which having been filed after 30 days prescribed by Article 152 of Limitation Act were not considered and the trial Court announced the judgment according to the award. The contentions of learned counsel that the award was invalid which made it void have no force. The existence of arbitration agreement between the parties is presumed unless objections to it are filed which was not done by the applicant within time prescribed by law. The Act contains provision for enforcement of an award based upon an oral submission. It has not been urged that the arbitrator at all recorded any evidence which should have been filed in Court alongwith the award. According to the established principles of law filing of the arbitration agreement and recording of the evidence is not mandatory and failure in that behalf in the circumstances of the present case does not render the award void. An arbitrator is to make inquiry but is not bound to keep a record of such an inquiry. There is no law which requires an arbitrator to keep record of his inquiry. Similarly an award by an arbitrator under the Act is equivalent to a judgment and there is no law which requires it to be proved or exhibited or to examine the arbitrator. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not supported his submissions in this behalf. There is no material record to show that the award in the instant case was compulsorily registrable but was not so registered. In Kh.
Muhammad Yousaf v. Kh. Abdul Rashid and others (i) it was held that Court is not precluded from dealing with award for its non-registration. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not urged any point which was not available to him at the time the order sought to be reviewed was passed and has failed to substantiate his submissions that the award was void. There is no force in this application which is dismissed in limine.
(1) PLD 1967 Kar. 508