1. ' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---This order will govern the disposal of abovementioned two civil petitions for leave to appeal which arise out of the same impugned order.
2. ' The petitioner in the abovementioned petitions entered into an agreement with the respondent for sale of fully paid up shares of a public limited company Shaffi Woollen Industries Limited on 12-7- 1990. It appears that some dispute arose with regard to terms and conditions of sale. Between the parties and accordingly arbitration clause 14 in the agreement was invoked. The sole arbitrator appointed in the case gave his award dated 27-5-1991 which directed respondent Farooq Ahmad to pay Rs,25,65,000 to the petitioner. The said respondent was also directed to pay Rs,51,02,000 as damages for delay in completing the transaction. The award was filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, .On 1-6-1991 for making it rule of the Court. The respondent on being served with the notice of filing of the award filed objections under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, besides, he also filed objections under section 30 of the Arbitration Act. Both the petitions namely, one filed under section 30 and the other under section 33 of the Arbitration Act were consolidated by the trial Court by order dated 13-12-1993. While the above proceedings were going on before the Senior Civil Judge, for making award rule of the Court, a petition for voluntary winding up the Company was presented in Lahore High Court on 14-6-1991. A learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court in exercise of Company jurisdiction on 7-11-1992 passed a winding up order and an official liquidator of the Company was also appointed. It appears that when the winding up order dated 7-11-1992 was brought to the notice of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, before whom the proceedings for confirmation of the award were pending, he adjourned the proceedings of the case sine die. The order of Senior Civil Judge was challenged by the petitioner in a Civil Revision Application which has been dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers by the impinged judgment, giving rise to the present proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that reference to section 316 of the Companies Ordinance by the learned Judge in Chambers in holding that the proceedings before the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore, were rightly adjourned sine die and that the proceedings of Civil Revision Application would not lie, was wholly misconceived as neither the suit nor revision application before the learned Judge in Chambers related to the company in liquidation so as to attract the provisions of section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the controversy in the suit before the Senior Civil Judge related to the confirmation of the award which was between two private persons though it related to sale of shares of a company in liquidation and therefore, it could not be treated as a suit either against or by the company in liquidation. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner requires examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal in both these petitions.