' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution by Maulana Abdus Sattar, Sahibzada Maulana Abdul Majeed Chishti, Pir Jee Abdul Aleem and forty others is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, dated 20-7-1988, by which the petitioners' revision petition against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal, dated 3-5-1987 making an arbitration award the rule of the Court was dismissed.
2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be shortly stated as follows. The dispute sought to be resolved in this litigation relates to the administration and management of Jamia Rashidia, Sahiwal. On 25-6-1986, Pir Jee Abdul Aleem, petitioner, instituted Suit No, 23 of 1986 against twenty eight persons including Maulana Wali Muhammad, respondent. On 15-1-1987, Anjuman Rashidia instituted Suit No, 25 of 1987 through Maulana Wali Muhammad against Pir Jee Abdul Aleem and nine others. On 24-7-1986, Maulana Wali Muhammad instituted another Suit viz. Suit No, 24 of 1987 against Pir Jee Abdul Aleem and thirty-one others seeking to restrain them perpetually from interfering with the administration and management of Jamia Rashidia. Yet another suit, viz. Suit No,106 of 1987 was instituted by Pir Jee Abdul Aleem and nine others on 23-2-1987. The defendants in the suit were the Province of the Punjab, District Magistrate and certain other officers of the district administration. As the main contention raised before me has something to do with Suit No,24 of 1987, instituted by Maulana Wali Muhammad as Ameerul Jamia and Mohtimim Madrissatul Jamia Rashidia, it will be sufficient to refer briefly to the plaint in that suit. The defendants in the suit were thirty-two persons but the principal defendant was Pir Jee Abdul Aleem. The plaintiff Maulana Wali Muhammad claimed that he had been duly appointed as the Mohtmim and Ameer of the Jamia Rashidia and he was, therefore, authorised to manage its affairs and that the Majlis-e-Shoora of the Jamia had in its meeting, held on 20-1-1986, confirmed him as Naazim-e-Ala. The Sarprust-e-Ala of the Jamia, Maulana Abdul Aziz, had for his assistance appointed Pir Jee Abdul Aleem as Naib-Nazim of the Jamia but later, on account of his illegal and immoral activities, Pir Jee Abdul Aleem had been removed. It was said that despite his removal, Pir Jee Abdul Aleem had been interfering with the administration and management of the Jamia, so much so that he had approached the Registrar of the Joint Stock Companies and had supplied him with a list of members who, according to him, had been elected as members of Majlis-e- Shoora. In a meeting of the Majlis-e-Shoora, held on 14-7-1986, the Majlis-e-Shoora confirmed the removal of Pir Jee Abdul Aleem from the office of Nizamat-e-Ala. A decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants was, therefore, sought on the ground that Pir Jee Abdul Aleem had been removed from the Nizamat-e-Ala and had, therefore, ceased to have anything to do with the administration and management of the Jamia and that the defendants should be restrained from interfering with the administration and management of the Jamia.
3. The above mentioned four suits were consolidated; proceedings were recorded in Suit No,25 of 1987. On 2-4-1987, Ch. Muhammad Rafiq, Advocate, Rana Sultan Ahmed, Advocate, counsel for Anjuman-e-Rashidia, Maulana Wali Muhammad and his supporters, Ch. Muhammad Anwar Waraich, Advocate, counsel for Pir Jee Abdul Aleem and his supporters made a joint statement referring the disputes to arbitration. Accordingly, the disputes were referred to arbitration on 3-5- 1987. Parties' counsel and some of the parties including Maulana Wali Muhammad and Pir Jee Abdul Aleem filed a joint application before the learned Civil Judge saying that the award had been made and that the same should be made the rule of the Court. The parties' counsel and the arbitrators appeared before the learned Civil Judge, made statements, and the award was made the rule of the Court.
4. Yet the petitioners filed a revision petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. Against the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 3-5-1987 making the award the rule of the Court. The order of the learned Civil Judge dated 3-5-1987 was assailed on three grounds but so far as this petition is concerned, only one of the them is relevant, namely, that some of the parties to the suits, namely, Soofi Hartz Ahmad, petitioner No,14, Maulana Muhammad Mumtaz, petitioner No,17, Tariq Hafiz, petitioner No,18, Muhammad Amjad, petitioner No,21, Hafiz Abdur Rashid, petitioner No,22 and some of the respondents, namely, the Assistant Registrar, respondent No,2, Province of the Punjab, respondent No,3, District Magistrate, Sahiwal, respondent No,31, Assistant Commissioner, Sahiwal, respondent No,32, the City Magistrate, respondent No,33, Inspector of Police, respondent No,34 and the D.S.P., respondent No,35, had not consented to the disputes being referred to arbitration and had not accepted the award, and therefore, the award and the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 3-5-1987 were against law.
5. As has been noticed above, petitioners Nos.14, 17, 18, 21 and 22 were all parties to Suit No,24 of 1987, instituted by Maulana Wali Muhammad. It appears that before the learned District Judge, a statement was made by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents including Maulana Wali Muhammad, plaintiff, in Suit No,24 of 1987, on 29-6-1988 that the names of the petitioners Nos.14, 17, 18, 21 and 22 should be deleted from the list of the defendants in the suit and it should be declared that the award and the decree were not binding upon them.
6. Dealing with this contention, the learned District Judge referred to the statement dated 29-6- 1988; also, he had no hesitation in saying that the "above-named persons were merely pro forma defendants and no relief whatsoever was claimed against them, so these persons cannot be considered as interested parties." For this reason, "coupled with that the learned counsel for contesting respondents have stated that their names be deleted and it may be declared that the decree would not be binding on them", so held the learned District Judge, their non-consent to the reference and the award has no effect on the validity of the award".
' As to the Assistant Registrar, the Province of the Punjab, the District Magistrate etc., the learned District Judge was of the view that the revision petitioners were not their representatives and had, therefore, no locus standi to assail the validity of the award "on the grounds which are open to the above mentioned respondent".
7. Now it is well-settled that "final orders passed by the Civil Courts within the ambit of their jurisdiction" are not challengable under Article 199 of the Constitution unless "the order is wholly void or coram non judice." See Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCM R 322.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that admittedly petitioners Nos.14, 17, 18, 21 and 22 had not consented to the disputes being referred to arbitration and also that they had not accepted the award. Relying upon section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, learned counsel for the petitioners ' argued that the award and the order of the learned Civil Judge dated 3-5-1987 were void.
9. Section 21 of the Arbitration Act provides that "where in any suit all the parties interested agree that any matter in difference between them in the suit shall be referred to arbitration, they may at any time before judgment is, pronounced apply in writing to the Court for an order of reference."
The question, therefore, is whether petitioners Nos.14, 17, 18, 21 and 22 were "parties interested' within the meaning of section 21. It is obvious that the question whether they were or were not "parties interested" was a mixed question of fact and law. The learned District Judge found that they were mere pro forma defendants. As observed above, they were defendants in one of the suits only, namely, Suit No,24 of 1987. That Suit was instituted by Maulana Wali Muhammad and the principal defendant in that Suit was Pir Jee Abdul Aleem, the relief sought against him being that he had ceased to have anything to do with the administration and management of the Jamia and that he should be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' administration and management of the Jamia. However, that may be, by their statements dated 29-6-1988 before the learned District Judge, the contesting respondents including Maulana Wali Muhammad had agreed to the names of these petitioners being deleted from the list of the defendants. This had this effect that these petitioners had ceased to be parties to the Suit with the result that the award and the decree of the Court dated 3-5-1987 were not binding upon them. As the award and the decree were not binding upon them, they could have no grievance to make against the award and the decree. In other words, these petitioners were not "parties interested" within the meaning of section 21 of the Arbitration Act and are not aggrieved parties within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution.
In any case, there is no question that it was "within the ambit" of the learned District Judge to decide whether they were or were not parties interested within the meaning of section 21 of the Arbitration Act. In other words, in deciding that question the learned District Judge acted within his jurisdiction and, therefore, the judgment cannot be characterised as a void judgment or a judgment coram non judice. The writ petition must, therefore, be held, on the authority of Muhammad Zahoor and another v. Lal Muhammad and 2 others 1988 SCMR 322 to be incompetent.
10. In my opinion, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution for yet another reason; in fact, this petition seems to be wholly misconceived. The order of the learned Civil Judge dated 3-5-1987 C was a decree and was appealable as a decree.
No appeal was preferred. What the petitioners chose to do was to file a revision petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. Now it is obvious that if the petitioners had availed of the proper remedy, i,e, the remedy of appeal against the Civil Judge's order dated 3-5-1987, then the remedy of revision under section 115 of the C.P.C. Would have been available to the petitioners against the learned District Judge's judgment.
11. For these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed.