Petitioner Rahmat Ali Khan had instituted a suit against the respondents', for declaration to the effect that he is the owner in possession of a Flying Coach bearing Registration No.BU-6455 in accordance with the Arbitration Award' given by Sahibzada Saifur Rehman's and Saaduallah Khan and, that, therefore, the defendants were bound to hand over the registration hook of the vehicle in question alongwtth Route Permit (Para.A) and balance amount of Rs.60,000 to him. He had also prayed, for declaration that he was entitled to ply the vehicle in question in accordance with law.
Additionally, a prayer was made for mandatory injunction restraining the respondents from, interfering with the plying of the vehicle in question and to act in accordance with the Arbitration Award mentioned above-
2. The respondents appeared in the trial Court and instead of filing written statements, submitted an application before it, praying therein that the plaint be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. The trial Court directed the petitioner to file replication and the needful was done. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court (name of the Civil Judge has not been mentioned on the certified copy of the judgment) rejected the plaint under Order 7, -Rule II, C.P.C. By its order recorded on 13-6-1997.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal with the District Judge. The District Judge (Mr. Abdul Satar khan) by its detailed order dated 17-10-1997 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. I have also gone through the record carefully.
5. It is not denied that the Arbitration Award was given by Messrs Sahibzada Saifur Rehman's and Sadullah Khan who were both appointed by the parties to the suit. It is also not denied that the said Award was not made Rule of the Court, for reasons best known to the parties alone. Needless to mention that if the Arbitration Award is not made the rule of the Court then in that case it cannot be enforced by filing an independent suit under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. If an authority is needed, I am supported by the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Messrs Awan Industries Ltd. v. The Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Division and another reported in 1992 SCM R 65 wherein it was held.:-- ------S. 32---Bar to suit contesting arbitration agreement or award---After coming into force of Arbitration Act, 1940, remedy of enforcing award by a suit was taken away by S.32 of the Act---First part of S.32 of the Arbitration Act precludes filing of suit for decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, while second part of the section prevents setting aside of arbitration agreement or award or modifying the same except as provided in the Act. "