MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by the Provincial Government and others from judgments dated 24-10-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby: One, petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of an Arbitration Award rendered against them and made rule of the Court, was dismissed; and Two, an execution appeal relating to the same case filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. The contesting parties entered into a contract for construction of a part of D.G. Khan and D.I.
Khan Road. Disputes having arisen, the respondent side filed a suit against the petitioners wherein reference was made to an Arbitrator. He entered upon reference on 3-5-1975. On 14-10-1975, the Award was rendered against the petitioners. They filed objections to the Award on 29-11-1975 which having been barred by time the Award was made rule of the Court against the petitioners on 12-2- 1976. The petitioners' Appeal and Civil Revision failed and they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has contended that according to the agreement the Arbitrator could not have been below the rank of a Superintending Engineer, while the Court had appointed an XEN who acted as Arbitrator and rendered the Award which, therefore, was illegal; and secondly, that the Arbitrator having entered upon reference on 3-5-1975 the Award was rendered after four months.
No extension having been granted beyond the period of four months it was void and nullity; and lastly, that the Award being itself a nullity the objections even if filed technically beyond the period of limitation, no bar of limitation would operate against the petitioners (on account of the Award being a nullity).
4. The first argument which relates to the question of fact, was not raised before the High Court. We do not consider it proper to entertain it at this late stage.
5. It is admitted .By the learned counsel that the Court had sent letters and reminders to the Arbitrator which have been interpreted by the learned Courts below as having allowed extension of time to the Arbitrator. The relevant correspondence has not been placed on the record. Be that as it may, in the circumstances of this case the question of extension also has been concluded by the findings of fact regarding which no justification has been made out for this Court to interfere. That being so, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners on question of limitation- petitioner's objections being time-barred, also loses force.
This petition No.141 of 1980 accordingly has no force and is thus dismissed.
The other petition (C.P. No. 142 of 1980), according to the learned counsel would have been pressed only if the leave to appeal would have been granted in CPSLA No.141 of 1980. He was, therefore, unable to press the second petition. The same is also dismissed.