1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Facts briefly stated are that appellant-firm entered into a contract with the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi for construction of 100-bedded hospital at Wah, District Campbellpur. According to the terms of the contract the project was to be completed within 18 months, and in case of dispute between the parties, the same was to be referred to a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the Ministry of Defence, G.H.Q Rawalpindi. Appellant started work and continued the construction for over a year. On 4-12-1959, the contract was, however, cancelled on the ground that appellant had failed to adhere to the the schedule and also had sublet the contract. As a result of the cancellation of the contract, the stores and material lying at the site and the security deposit and other assets belonging to the appellant were forfeited, and the remaining work was got completed through another contractor at appellant's risk. After adjustment of the said amount, a minus bill was issued to appellant for sum of Rs. 3,43,413.
2. Appellant disputed the right of the Government to cancel the contract and denied its liability. The dispute between the parties was referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. A . HQureshi, Chief Engineer, P.A.F., Peshawar on 1-12-1960. The parties filed their respective claims before the Arbitrator on 29-6- 1961, and the Arbitrator finally gave the award on 24-10-1961 rejecting appellant's claim and allowing that of the respondent.
3. The award was filed in the Court of Administrative Civil Judge Rawalpindi. The appellant challenged its validity but the objections were rejected, and the award was made the rule of the Court. Appellant filed an appeal against the judgment and decree in the High Court but it was dismissed.
4. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court in order to examine, firstly, whether the learned trial Judge was not justified in extending the period of limitation for giving the award by the Arbitrator beyond four months after entering upon the reference; secondly, whether the Arbitrator had erred in examining C.I.D. Report about the financial position of the appellant produced on behalf of respondent behind their back and had thus committed misconduct. Thirdly, whether the Arbitrator had wrongly refused appellant's request for producing evidence and, fourthly, whether the Arbitrator had failed to determine the question of incidence of the contract.
5. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the record before us, we find that all these aspects have already been examined by the learned Administration Judge in details and the High Court also dealt with these adequately. It has been held that in view of the conduct of the appellant in appearing before the Arbitrator even after the the for giving the award had expired, without, any objection, and the fact that the Arbitrator gave adjournments at the instance of the appellant, the the spent beyond four months by the Arbitrator had been justifiably extended under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, and the discretion exercised by the trial Court in allowing the the with retrospective effect was affirmed. As regards the second plea, the High Court, on examination of the record regarding the production of C.I.D. Reports, reached the conclusion that the report was not called by the Arbitrator, he never desired to make any secret or private enquiry, and it was during the course of arguments, on the last date of hearing, that a document described as C.I.D. Report, was produced by the representative of the Department in the presence of the other party, and the Arbitrator made a note of it in the proceedings. The said report was not accepted in evidence, nor was it in any manner proved that it was ever called for by the Arbitrator. The High Court also accepted the testimony of the Arbitrator to the effect that no request was made by the appellant for production of evidence which was rejected by the Arbitrator. As to the last plea, the High Court has held it is inherent in the award made by the Arbitrator that all the questions regarding the liability of the parties on the basis of their claims and objections were before the Arbitrator, and he gave the award for Rs.1,42,339 in full and final settlement in favour of the respondent, taking into consideration all the evidence produced by the parties. Since all the points raised in support of the appeal have already been appreciated by the High Court and rejected for the reasons with which we entirely agree, there is no merit in this appeal and it is) dismissed with costs.