' In this revision petition order, dated 20-3-1989 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, dismissing petitioner's appeal against order, dated 7-9-1971 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the objection petition of the petitioner against the award has been challenged.
2. The respondent made an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act praying that the agreement executed between the parties for construction of swimming pool be ordered to be filed in the Court and the dispute having arisen between the parties under the said agreement be referred to the Arbitrator to be appointed by the Court.
3. The said application was accepted and the learned trial Court appointed the arbitrator and referred the dispute between the parties to the arbitrator so appointed. The claim was filed by the respondent before the said arbitrator but subsequently the appointment of the said arbitrator was cancelled and a new arbitrator was appointed. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings another development took place which was to the effect that the present petitioner ordered for the allotment of balance of work at the risk and cost of the respondent and also encashed the bank guarantee amounting to Rs.50,000.00. Since the said action was also taken in pursuance of a right derived from one of the clauses of the same agreement and in continuation of the previous dispute, which was referred to the arbitrator therefore, the respondent filed further claims before the arbitrator who was subsequently appointed after the cancellation of appointment of the previous arbitrator. The present petitioner as admitted by learned counsel appearing on his behalf, was given opportunity to file objections against the said additional claims which were also adjudicated upon by the arbitrator and the parties were given opportunity to produce evidence in regard thereto.
4. The arbitrator announced the award which was filed in Court on 18-2-1971. It was opened in the presence of the parties on 22-2-1971 a copy of which was delivered to each party. According to the award the respondent was awarded an amount of Rs.1,17,609.45 with 6% costs. The petitioner filed objections against this award on 26-3-1971. Prior thereto, the petitioner had filed an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act. The learned trial Court through order, dated 27-2-1971 dismissed both the applications. Application under section 30 of the Arbitration Act which was in fact objections against the award was held to be barred by time having been admittedly filed after the expiry of 30 days the period which was fixed under Limitation Act for filing the objections.
Regarding application under section 33 of the Limitation Act, it was held that objections raised therein could not be incorporated in the application made under section 30 and both the applications could not be joined together therefore, both the applications were to be decided separately.
5. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge has been dismissed through order, dated 20-3-1989.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued:
(i) That the Arbitrator failed to record reasons in support of his award therefore the award was bad in law;
(ii) That the Arbitrator was not empowered to entertain additional claims filed by the respondent as such any amount granted in respect of those claims was not tenable;
(iii) That the application under section 33 in which the above-mentioned two objections were raised could be treated as objection petition itself which application having been filed within the period of limitation therefore the objections filed against the award could not have been held to be barred by time; and
(iv) That the Arbitration Agreement was not duly stamped therefore, could not have been made the basis for making reference to the arbitrator and his appointment.
7. I have considered the arguments and find that nothing turns on the question whether the objections filed by the petitioner were barred by time or not as the two Courts below have considered the above-mentioned objections raised by the petitioner and decided against him. As has been observed above, during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, in pursuance of the same agreement the petitioner passed an order for allotment of balance of the work at the risk and cost of the respondent and had encashed bank guarantee amounting to Rs.50,000.00 which was to be encashed after the finding was recorded that the respondent was at fault. The allotment of remaining work gave rise to a right to the respondent to raise further claims which were also relatable to the same agreement therefore could very well be entertained andli adjudicated upon in the same arbitration proceedings. The petitioner was admittedly granted opportunity to meet those claims and was also granted opportunity to produce evidence. No objection at the relevant time appears to have been raised before the Arbitrator when the said claims were entertained.
Admittedly no application was also made to the Court raising objections at the relevant time regarding entertainment of those additional claims.
8. As regards the argument that the arbitrator did not record reasons in support of the award suffice it to say that the provisions of section 26-A were incorporated by amendment in the Arbitration Act on 11-5-1981 whereas the award had been delivered long before that. Under the law then applicable there was no obligation on the arbitrator to give reasons in support of the award therefore, at this stage in revisional jurisdiction I am not even otherwise inclined to exercise discretion in favour of the 'petitioner for referring back the award to the arbitrator to record reasons. The parties are in litigation since 1969 and it will be adding further agony to the parties at this stage to accede to the request of the petitioner which is based on mere technicalities.
9. The objection regarding agreement being not duly stamped should have been raised before the order was passed by the Court for appointment of Arbitrator and making reference to him. The arbitration agreement having been acted upon and the petitioner having participated in the proceedings commenced by the arbitrator cannot turn around now to raise objection that the Arbitration agreement was not duly stamped which being question of fact cannot be raised at this stage.
10. The petitioner failed to satisfy me that the award was bad on account of any of the reasons mentioned in section 30 or that the Arbitrator misconducted himself in the proceedings.
11. No case has been made out for interference by this Court under section 115, C.P.C. in the impugned orders. The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.