' KAMAL MUSTAFA BOKHARI, J.-This is an Intra-Court Appeal from the order, dated 10th December, 1983 of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1436 of 1983.
2. Respondent No. 2 applied to respondent No. 1, Chairman, Board of Arbitrators, Market Committee, Khanewal, District Multan, for the recovery of Rs, 40,500 from the appellant. That application appears to have been made on 30tn July, 1983. After recording statements of witnesses of respondent No. 2, a member of Arbitration Board, respondent No. 1, gave an award in ex parte proceedings in favour of respondent No. 2 against appellant for a sum of Rs, 40,500 on 8th October, 1983. Appellant challenged it by a constitutional petition which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, on 10th December, 1983 for the reason that alternate remedy before the civil Court for raising objections to the execution of the award was available to the appellant. It is stated that appellant filed objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which were rejected for his failure to deposit the decrial amount.
3. It has been urged that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction because dispute was between the two dealers and did not relate to a notified market area of the market committee. On behalf of respondent No. 2 it has been submitted that the writ petition was not competent in the High Court because remedy of filing objections under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure was available to the appellant which was adequate and in fact the objections were raised and rejected by the civil Court for failure to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security as required by Order XXI, rule 23 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Fazil v.
Commissioner for Payment of Wages and another (1).
4. The Government by a notification under section 24 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978 had given power to respondent No. 1 to decide all or any of the disputes arising in a notified market area other than a dispute to which all the parties were dealers.
(1) 1974 PLC 89 ' The dispute between the parties was recovery of Rs, 40,500 on account of non-supply of cotton by appellant to respondent No. 2 and for nonpayment of price of cotton supplied by respondent No. 2 to the appellant. It was not stated in the application of respondent No. 2 that appellant had entered into the agreement with him in the capacity of a grower. No such evidence was led to give jurisdiction to the respondent No. 1. There is no finding of the Board of Arbitrators that the appellant was a grower and the dispute was not between the two dealers. The Board of Arbitrators did not come to a conclusion that the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 2 had arisen within the notified market area. We find that half of the amount claimed was on account of cotton purchased by appellant from respondent No. 2. Evidently the dispute was between the two dealers for which jurisdiction of Board of Arbitrators had been specifically excluded under section 24 of the aforementioned Ordinance. Respondent No. 1 had also no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without giving any finding that the dispute between the appellant and respondent No. 2 had arisen within the notified market area. There is nothing on record for coming to a conclusion that it fell within the boundaries of market area notified under section 4 of the Ordinance. The impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. The remedy of raising objection to execution of the award of respondent No. 1 was not adequate.
' For the foregoing reasons the appeal is accepted, order, dated 10th December, 1983, by the learned Single Judge of this Court is set aside and the impugned order, dated 8th October, 1983 of respondent No. 1 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. In the circumstances the parties are left to bear their respective costs.