SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZM1, J.- This judgment will decide F.A.O. No. 98 of 1990 calls in , dated 18.3.1990. Refusing to set aside the award and making it a rule of the Court.
2. Muhammad Yousaf, respondent No.1, filed an application under Sections 14 and 17 of Arbitration Act, 1940, for filing of award dated 3.6.1986, in the Court and for making the same a rule of the Court. It was claimed that for the exchange of agricultural land, an agreement, dated 16.7.1983, was executed, in terms whereof. Rs.2,40.000/- was paid. It was claimed that the exchange agreement was not implemented and the land was given to third person. To resolve this issue, parties entered into an arbitration agreement-, dated 18.8.1986, by when four arbitrators, namely, Muhammad Afzal son of Muhammad Yousaf, Muhammad Zafar son of Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Aslant son of Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Aslant son of Nawab Din were appointed who were referred the issue and required to decide the claim of the parties. The arbitrators gave their award on 3.9.1986 which was filed in the Court.
3. Appellants filed objections to the award and claimed that only two arbitrators, namely, Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Zafar had signed the award and the other two arbitrators had not put in their signatures and, therefore, the award was untenable. In the course of evidence, an attempt was made to plead that the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was allegedly awarded by the two arbitrators which was interpolated and made Rs.3,40,000/-.
4. The learned Civil Judge after considering the evidence on record, concluded that .All the four arbitrators had signed the award, there was no interpolations and that the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- was awarded by the arbitrators unanimously. The objections were rejected and award ordered to be made rule of the Court on 18.3.1990.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellants, with great efforts, traced out a photo copy of the award which was only signed by the two arbitrators. It was added that the amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was over written and changed to Rs.3,40,000/-. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order.
''6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made and evidence available on record and found the appeal to be without substance.
7. As per claim of the respondents, all the four arbitrators had signed the award. The original award Exh.RW-1/1, clearly shows that all the four arbitrators and also the witness had signed the award.
Not only that the award is signed by Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Azar arbitrators but also it has been signed by the other two arbitrators, namely, Muhammad Aslant son of Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Aslant son of Nawab Din. Muhammad Aslant son of Nawab Din and Muhammad Aslant son of Wali Muhammad appeared as PW-2 and PW-3 and deposed that the award was signed by all the four arbitrators. Muhammad Yousaf PW-3 also supported the respondents in this regard, In view of the fact that the original award is signed by all the four arbitrators, the objection raised does not carry any substance. The alleged photo copy produced in appeal was never produced in the trial Court in the course of statement of arbitrators. This being so, the photo copy, sought to be produced at this stage, cannot be considered as the same does not form part of the evidence nor any authenticity is attached to the same. Even otherwise this document was never confronted to the three arbitrators who appeared in the Court, therefore, at this belated stage it cannot be entertained. It is also observed that the plea of interpolations is not well-founded for the reason that appellant No.1 Faqir Muhammad appearing as PW-2 admitted that the award was given for Rs.3,40,000/-. It was not his case that the figure of Rs. 1,40,000/- was changed to Rs.3,40,000/- and in fact he categorically stated that the arbitrators announced Rs.3,40,000/- instead of Rs. 1,40,000/-. It is also observed that none of the witnesses produced by the respondents were ever suggested that the amount to the impugned award was changed. In this situation the learned Court below rightly concluded that the objections were mis-conceived and untenable.
8. No mis-conduct is pointed out or ever proved. The award rendered by the arbitrators does not offend any provision of law nor suffer from any invalidity. Findings recorded by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any misreading of the record or error of law hence no ground is made out for interference.
9. Resultantly this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.