1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of Baluchistan High Court, dated 18-9-1984 dismissing petitioner's appeal and in result upholding the judgment of the District Judge, Quetta, dated 13-10-1983. By that judgment, learned District Judge made the Award of the Sole Arbitrator appointed by the parties as Rule of the Court.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that on 11-12-1974 respondents filed an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act in the former High Court of Sind and Baluchistan for appointment of an arbitrator for the settlement of the dispute between the parties arising out of a contract executed by them relating to the construction of Nehar Bridge on Karachi- Kalat-Quetta Road. It is the admitted, position of the parties that the execution of the contract and the financial transaction relating thereto took place in Karachi District. The High Court by consent of the parties appointed Mr. Zahid Hussain, Superintending Engineer as the Sole Arbitrator by the order, dated 3-2-1975. The Arbitrator gave the Award on 2-6-1975 in the sum of Rs.5,55,419 in respondent's favour, and the Award was filed in the High Court on 5-8-1975. Thereafter, on 30-9-1975 petitioner filed an application in the said High Court under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act for setting aside the award.
3. On 27-5-1976 at the request of learned Advocate-General who appeared for the petitioner, the case' was transferred for hearing at Quetta, and afterwards; since the former High Court of Sind and Baluchistan ceased to function as a common High Court for the Provinces of Baluchistan and Sind as from 1-6-1976, the case was transferred to the District Judge, Quetta by the order of the High Court of Baluchistan, dated 24-8-1978.
4. Learned District Judge, Quetta after hearing the parties the light of the record before him made the Award as Rule of the Court and passed the decree accordingly on 13-10-1983.
5. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge,Quetta, petitioner filed an appeal before the Baluchistan High Court which was dismissed by the judgment, dated 18-9-1984.
6. Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court and Mr. Raja M. Afsar, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing in support of the petition firstly submitted that the former High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, in its original jurisdiction, was not competent to deal with the application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act as the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of District Lasbella in the Province of Baluchistan, where the work under the contract was carried out. Secondly, learned counsel submitted that the High Court has failed to appreciate that the Award made by the Sole Arbitrator was for an inflated claim and was also barred by the.
7. Learned counsel finally submitted that the High court has also failed to appreciate that the learned Sole Arbitrator did not grant adequate opportunity to petitioner to defend the proceeding.
8. All these points were raised on behalf of the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Quetta and also before the High Court, and these have been dealt with and rejected for proper and cogent reasons. There can be no doubt as to the legal position that since the contract was admittedly executed in Karachi District where financial transaction also took place the 'High Court of Sind and Baluchistan was competent to deal with the application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act .In its original jurisdiction. In this behalf, learned Judges in the High Court have rightly pointed out that by virtue of clause (c) of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure suit can be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Although, the works under the contract were executed in Lasbella, yet since the contract was. 9dmittedly executed in Karachi District where the financial transaction also took place, there can be no escape from the conclusion that since the cause of action partly arose in -Karachi, the former High Court of Sind and Baluchistan was competent to deal with the application. No such objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner before the High Court; indeed, the High Court also appointed the Sole Arbitrator by consent of the parties. In the circumstances, there is no force in the first plea raised by the learned counsel.
9. As regards the second plea, it may be mentioned that respondents' claim against petitioner was for Rs.10,16,831, excluding interest, and no counter-claim was made by the petitioner. Learned Sole Arbitrator after having considered the documentary evidence gave the Award in the sum of Rs.5,55,419 in favour of the respondents. Plea that the suit was barred by the was not raised before him and as pointed out by the learned Judge in the High Court the plea of limitation essentially relates to the factual controversy, and therefore, it ought to have been raised before the Arbitrator.
10. As to the quantum of claim awarded by the Sole Arbitrator, we do not see how on the facts of the case the plea that an inflated claim has been awarded can legitimately be raised by the petitioner.
11. The last submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is also equally futile, for, it also stands proved from the record that the learned Sole Arbitrator had given full chance to the petitioner to defend the claim set up by the respondent.
12. For these reasons, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed.