1. ' In a dispute between Pakistan Defence Housing Authority, the plaintiff and M/s. Meer Brothers hereinafter referred as defendants, Mr. M.G. Siddiqui was appointed the Sole Arbitrator who has made the award against which the defendants filed objection. The defendants were awarded contract for earth filling under agreements dated 10-7-1976 and 1-9-1976. The agreements provided for arbitration in case of dispute between the parties. The Arbitrator entered upon reference and proceeded with the matter. He has given reasons. For the award in which the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of over payment made to the defendants has been dismissed. Likewise the claim made by the defendants was also dismissed.
2. ' The plaintiff has accepted the award. The defendants have filed objection on 25-3-1986. Mr. Hussain Adil Khatri the learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the learned Arbitrator did not record the evidence of Mr. A.R. Farooqui which was material for proving the defendants' case. In this regard he has referred to the minutes recorded by the learned Arbitrator. I have gone through the entire minutes which have been maintained in a clear manner. From these minutes it is clear that the witnesses of the parties have not been examined in the manner as the evidence is recorded in Court. What the learned Arbitrator has done is that he has examined the witnesses in presence of the parties and gist of the statements has been recorded by him. This method of recording evidence cannot be termed as illegal so far it does not violate the principle of natural justice to the extent that the material points are recorded and chance for cross- examination of the witnesses is also provided to the other side. The plaintiff has not objected on this ground. From the substance of evidence of Mr. A.R. Faruqui was found in the minutes dated 11- 1-1986 it seems that the defendants had put questions to him. He however, after giving some facts stated that he needed some time to contemplate over the matter after which he may appear if he recalled the facts of the case. Subsequently on 13-1-1986 he did not appear before the Arbitrator which was noted by him in the minutes. If the defendants were keen to examine A.R. Faruqui, it should have seen to it that he appears before the Arbitrator on 13-1-1986. On that date the defendants did not make any request to call Mr. Faruqui as a witness. This is not the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants that the substance of evidence recorded by the Arbitrator was incorrect. According to him he was not at all examined which is completely belied by the minutes of the Arbitrator because he was examined in the presence of the parties and gist of the statement was recorded in the minutes by the Arbitrator and although he was called upon to appear on the next date, he remained absent. This contention has therefore no merits.
3. ' The next contention of the counsel for the defendants is that Shamshad Ahmed Khan was not called although cited as a witness. From the minutes dated 6-1-1986 it is clear that although the plaintiff had opposed the examination of this witness who was alleged to be hostile to the plaintiff, the learned Arbitrator called him for recording his evidence on 11th January, 1986. On that date he did not appear before the Arbitrator and no request was made by the defendants to call him again. On 13-1-1986 the Arbitrator examined Aslam of M/s. Meer Brothers the defendants and Col. Retd. Mujibullah Khan on behalf of the plaintiff and gist of their statements has been recorded. After that the singificant aspect is that the Arbitrator asked both the parties if they wished to bring out any further thing but both of them stated that no further submission was to be made and thereupon the Arbitrator fixed the matter for judgment. If the defendants had any grievance to the procedure adopted by the Arbitrator or its witnesses were not examined which it wanted to examine it should have requested the Arbitrator not to reserve the matter for judgment but to examine the witnesses. The defendants had not raised any such objection at that time and have chosen to attack the award after it has been made and has partly gone against them. This objection is not tenable.
4. ' The last contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the Arbitrator has not applied his mind to the evidence produced before the Arbitrator. This objection presupposes that some evidence was recorded before the Arbitrator and were produced on record. In this regard the learned counsel has referred to the objection filed by the defendants and the Measurment Book which according to him were not considered at all. A perusal of the award makes it clear that the Arbitrator has examined all of them and finding has been given by taking into consideration and discussing the-material produced before the Arbitrator. Misappreciation of evidence, and drawing conclusions from the evidence which in a party's view may be incorrect, unless they are perverse and biased, cannot be a ground for setting aside the award.
5. ' The objection filed by the defendant is therefore, dismissed and the award made by the learned Arbitrator is made rule of the Court.
6. Award made rule of the Court.