' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.,---In this appeal with leave of the Court order in question is dated 6-6-1988, whereby High Court Appeal No, 61 of 1988 was dismissed in limine, which was filed against the order dated 24-4-1988 passed by learned Judge in Chamber making award the rule of the Court without considering objections on the ground that they were filed beyond stipulated time.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts in the background are that appellant before us, namely, Muhammad Tayab is the owner of land in dispute which was already on lease with Mir Noor Hussain and in his possession until 1988. Tripartite agreement was executed on 29-2-1986 providing that after expiry of lease period in 1988, tenure of lease would be extended for a further period of three years jointly in favour of Mir Noor Hussain Talpur and respondent Akbar Hussain on payment of lease money at the rate of Rs,275 per acre to Muhammad Tayab, who shall execute registered lease jointly in favour of both lessees. Abovementioned agreement also provided arbitration clause in which it is stated that if any dispute arose between the parties, the same shall be referred to arbitration for decision and the parties shall be bound to such decision.
3. It appears from the record and documents filed that arbitration proceedings were taken in hand by sole arbitrator at the behest of respondent Akbar Hussain and the case diary in the arbitration proceedings indicates that Muhammad Tayab was not served and on 19-10-1987 Akbar Hussain and Mir Noor Hussain Talpur appeared before the Arbitrator and informed him that matter had been compromised between the parties. The Arbitrator asked Akbar Hussain and Mir Noor Hussain Talpur to bring Muhammad Tayab before him on the next date of hearing to confirm the claim that compromise has taken place, failing which he would start recording evidence of witnesses. On the next date of hearing Muhammad Tayab did not appear and the Arbitrator started recording evidence of the witnesses and concluded the proceedings by passing award in favour of Akbar Hussain by giving him damages in the sum of Rs,100,000 and Rs,20,000 per month from 22-2-1987 till the date of award.
4. Akbar Hussain filed petition under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for making award the rule of the Court. Muhammad Tayab appeared before the Registrar of the High Court and, instead of filing objections within stipulated time, requested for enlargement of time for two weeks under section 148, C.P.C., which was allowed. He filed objections on 21-3-1988, which was six days after the last date of the extended time. Learned Single Judge did not consider the objections on the ground that they were filed beyond stipulated time and without going into merits of the case made award rule of the Court. Feeling aggrieved,_ Muhammad Tayab filed the High Court appeal, which is dismissed in limine as stated Above on the ground that limitation for filing objections under Article 158 of the First Schedule was thirty days from the date of the service of notice and filing of award and since the objections were filed beyond stipulated time, no interference was warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge.
5. It is contended before us on behalf of the appellant that it was duty of the Court to have examined the award regardless of the fact whether objections were filed or not as empowered under sections 17 and 30 of the Arbitration Act to find out whether the award was nullity because of invalidity of arbitration agreement or for any other reason. The Court could also have set aside the award in case of sole arbitrator and particularly when other party had no prior notice. In support of the contentions reliance is placed on the case of M/s. Awan Industries Ltd. v. The Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Division (1992 SCM R 65).
6. In the circumstances we are of the view that learned Single Judge in the High Court should not have refused to go into the merits of the case on the ground that objections were filed beyond stipulated time particularly in view of the plea taken by the appellant that he was not served with notice in the arbitration proceedings. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment in High Court appeal and also impugned order of the learned Single Judge making award rule of the Court and remand the case to learned Single Judge in the High Court to examine the record of the arbitration proceedings to find out whether the plea taken by the appellant about non-service of notice is justified or not This seemingly can be done without going into the question of limitation as is observed in the ruling mentioned above. The Appeal is allowed in the terms stated above.