' This first appeal is directed against an order, dated 24-4-1980 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore whereby an award, dated 10-1-1979 made by Mr. Justice Hamood-ur-Rahman, the ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as an Arbitrator between That Industries Corporation (appellant) and Thal Development Authority (respondent No, 1) was made as a rule of the Court.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are that after a decision by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 6-3-1974 passed in Civil Appeal No, 74 of 1969 from a judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated 27-5-1965 dismissing the writ petition, reported as Muhammad Ibrahim Siddiqui v. Thal Industries Corporation Ltd. And another PLD 1974 SC 198, wherein the appeal was accepted to the extent of granting a declaration to the appellant to the effect that the transfer of 4,763 Acres of land effected in the year 1954 by the appellant to respondent No, 1 was without lawful authority and of no legal effect, the appellant in this appeal and respondent No,1 actually agreed to refer the matter as to the assessment of compensation in respect of the above- said land to the sole arbitration of Mr. Justice (Retd.) Hamood-ur-Rahman, the ex-Chief Justice of Pakistan since the land after its transfer by the appellant to respondent No, 1 had been distributed and disposed of in favour of a large number of allottees and others by respondent No 1. The learned Arbitrator by virtue of his award, dated 10-1-1979 held that respondent No, 1 was to pay to the appellant Rs,2,67,53,538 as compensation for the said land, at the same time awarded to respondent No, 2 one per cent out of the compensation which was to be received by the Corporation appellant under the Award from the T.D.A. Respondent No,l.
3. An application thereafter was moved under section 14 of the Arbitration Act by respondent No, 2 for making the Award as a rule of the Court. The appellant and respondent No,1 filed objections against the award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act in the civil Court and after receiving the replies from the interested parties, the learned Civil Judge rased the following issues:-
(1) Whether the Award is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the objections? (O.P Objectors).
(2) Relief.
' On 23-10-1979 the appellant and respondent No, 2 Mr. A.R.
' Ansari made their statements that they would not prefer to adduce any evidence under the main issue. Respondent No, ' Thal Development Authority however, desired to produce the evidence.
Respondent No,1 despite several opportunities failed to summon or produce any witness as a result of which the learned Civil Judge closed the evidence of respondent No,
1. The learned Civil Judge in his order expressed that since that was a case of no evidence and as the objectors had failed to substantiate their objections so there was no difficulty in making the Award as a rule of the Court. A request was made at that stage by the learned counsel for the appellant to adjourn the case for arguments regarding which the learned Civil Judge observed that there was hardly any ground for postponing the case to any further date. According to him no misconduct had been alleged much less proved against the learned Arbitrator who was a person not less than the status of a former Chief Justice of Pakistan, hence no fraud was otherwise deducible from the elaborate Award.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the objection petition filed by the appellant should have been accepted by the learned Civil Judge because the Arbitrator had decided the matter in which respondent No, 2 was awarded one per cent out of the compensation to be realised from respondent No, 1 as that had not been referred to the learned Arbitrator for his arbitration.
5. As is obvious from the order of the learned Civil Judge the appellant had not substantiated its objections before him since the case was not argued. This is an infirmity verging on the merit yet in the interest of justice this Court proposes to examine the validity of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, here.
' It is quite clear from the judgment of the learned Supreme Court that the matter as to the transfer of the above-said land was not pursued by the appellant but in fact it was pursued by its share- holder obviously representative of the other share-holders as a result of which effort the above noted compensation was awarded to the appellant without any effort in the beginning on the part of the appellant. As to the position of respondent No, 2 a reference can be made very conveniently to the Award in which the learned Arbitrator made certain observations which are: "the preliminary examination of some documents supplied for determining the nature of the case revealed that one Mr. A.R. Anwari had been appearing at all stages when attempts were being made to settle the dispute amicably on behalf of the private share-holders, he too was called upon to indicate whether he would like to appear in the arbitration proceedings. He was also informed that the parties had been called upon to file their respective statements within three weeks. Mr. A.R.
Anwari expressed his readiness to participate in the proceedings and actually filed his claim on 30- 11-1976 At this meeting it was agreed that Mr. A.R. Anwari will be allowed to participate in the arbitration proceedings as he had in the past also been representing the private share-holders and looking after their interests Development Authority (respondent No, 1) filed its arguments on the 26th August, 1978 and Mr. A.R. Anwari his arguments on the 31st August, 1978 Mr. A.R. Anwari wishes to raise another issue with regard to his personal claim, but after some discussion he did not press this issue and left it to the Arbitrator to consider his claim."
(and then towards the end) it was observed in para. No, 86; "Now I have to consider the question whether Mr. Anwari is entitled to any amount in respect of his claim of personal compensation. He claims the sum of rupees two to three lacs. He was not allowed to raise a specific issue with regard to this on the assurance that the matter will be considered by the Arbitrator. I have now given my anxious consideration to this question and have come to the conclusion that it is largely due to the efforts of Mr. Anwari that the Corporation of is now benefiting to the extent of Rs,2,67,53,538. It is he and his associates namely, some of the private share-holders who took the matter to the High Court to challenge the handing over of the lands to the 'Authority' by the 'Corporation' and its Directors which fully concurred and approved of this action, then to the Supreme Court to challenge the correctness of the dismissal of their writ. It is he who had been taking a very keen interest in the affairs of the Corporation throughout and had been applying himself with such vigor and force that he had, it is stated; actually fallen ill. During the course of these proceedings he had actually to get himself admitted in Samli Sanitorium for treatment. I cannot help feeling that this windfall is due entirely to his efforts. Some recompense should be made to him and I would, therefore, suggest that out of the compensation to be received by the 'Corporation' from the 'Authority' 1 per cent should be given by the Corporation to Mr. A.R.
Anwari and I award accordingly. Some private share-holders have filed petitions before me recommending the case of Mr. Anwari for personal compensation. If such private share-holders are not satisfied that this 1$ will be adequate compensation for Mr. Anwari, it will be open to them to contribute any further sum they think fit towards the personal compensation of Mr. Anwari.
(87) My Award, therefore, is that the 'Authority' do pay to the Corporation the sum of Rs,2,67,53,538 in full and final settlement of all disputes pending upto this date between the Authority and the Corporation. If any portion of this sum is to be distributed among the share-holders of the Company, the Authority will as a share-holder also be entitled to its share proportionate to its contribution towards the share capital and I award accordingly."
6. The analysis of the above questions from the Award does clearly Ordinate and show that the matter as to some compensation, to respondent No, 2 was consented to by the appellant under which the original reference was also made to take that course from which now the appellant cannot wriggle out on the principle of estoppel. The appellant has not shown that before the learned Arbitrator in the beginning any objection was taken by it as to the participation of Mr. Anwar' in the proceedings and the promise held out to him. The perusal of the Award shows, rather he was encouraged and on his representation certain questions were considered and settled and he had been assured that the matter in his behalf would be considered by the Arbitrator, so this being a consented course and the award of compensation to respondent No, 2 being incidental qua the appellant for the services rendered by respondent No, 2, in a way covering the costs as- to the pursuance of a cause right from the very beginning about which the appellant was neglectful of its duty, does not have the effect of vitiating the Award. No other point has been urged, therefore, this appeal is dismissed being without any merit but without any order as to costs.