1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner/defendants' Civil Revision. It has arisen out of arbitration proceedings wherein the respondent's application relating to an award being made rule of the Court, was dismissed. The respondent's appeal was allowed but petitioners' Civil Revision challenging the appellate order was dismissed on the ground that it was not competent.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has read the relevant parts from the judgment of this Court in the case of Messrs Combined Enterprises v. WAPDA Lahore PLD 1988 Supreme Court 39 which was relied upon by the High Court for the finding that the Civil Revision was not competent. This question might require further examination in a proper case as to whether the assumption by the High Court that Civil Revision was not competent in all such cases is correct. Because the possibility cannot be excluded that the said judgment of this Court is not to the effect assumed by the High Court in this case. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the appellate Court examined in detail and rejected the petitioners' objections which were based on hypertechnical arguments. For example, an award admittedly signed by the arbitrator was sought to be kept out of consideration simply because it was not the original typed written paper but the signatures were on the award which was carbon copy of the original which had been lost. If the carbon copy would not have been signed by the arbitrator the position might have been different. In any case the appellate Court did not commit any error which could be treated as substantial, so as to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Similar question of use of stamp papers also was adequately dealt with in the appellate judgment. We might have paid more attention to these technical matters if there would have been any plea on the real merits or miscarriage of justice.
3. Accordingly, while being unable to uphold the revisional order passed by the High Court in so far as the question of the competency of the revision in the High Court is concerned we, in the facts and circumstances of this case, do not find any justification to grant of leave to appeal. If the case is remanded to the High Court, the appellate judgment would be upheld. Thus, such an exercise is no more necessary when the points involved are hypertechnical. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.