' AMAN ULLAH KHAN YASINZAI, J.---This appeal under section 39 of the Arbitration Act has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 26-7-1999 whereby the award, dated 2-10-1997 passed by Arbitrators has been made rule of the Court.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs,14,66,999,99. In the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Quetta on 6-4-1986 against the appellants. It was averred in the plaint that the respondent was awarded a contract for construction of the FSF, Headquarters at Quetta on 7-4-1977 and the work on the site was started on 10-4-1977. When the work was in progress it was stopped on 25-7-1977 on the orders of the appellants and again resumed on the order of the Executive Engineer on 13-4-1978 and the work was in progress, when it was again stopped on the interference of Balochistan Reserve Police (B.R.P.). Later on the action of the B.R.P. Was also endorsed by the appellants. It was further averred that during this period when the work was stopped twice the respondent had been paying regularly salary to the employees and had been incurring expenses on hiring of machinery, transport and construction materials etc. Claim was also accepted by the Executive Engineer.
3. In the meanwhile, the respondent filed an application before the Ombudsman, where the claim of the respondent was disputed by the appellants he was directed to seek remedy before a Civil Judge. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit before the Senior Civil Judge, claiming the aforementioned amount and the details of the expenses incurred by him, has been given in detail in the plaint. The respondent filed his written statement on 24-2-1987 contesting the suit on legal and factual grounds. The issues were framed and the statement of the attorney of representative of the respondent was recorded and the representative of the appellants was got recorded his statement. Thereafter, the case was referred to sole Arbitrator i,e, namely Justice (Rtd.) Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry. After hearing both the parties the arbitrator gave his award on 2-10-1997. After receiving award the learned Senior Civil Judge gave notice of the same to the parties and on 14-9- 1998. Copy of the award was given to the appellants, objections were invited by the Senior Civil Judge from both the parties.
4. Record reveals that on the date i,e, 14-9-1998 the case was inadvertently consigned to record.
However, on 29-9-1998 the said Order regarding the consignment of the file was recalled and the parties were directed to submit their objections regarding the award. Appellants filed their objections on 21-11-1999, the objections filed by the appellants were contested by the respondent.
After hearing both the parties the learned Senior Civil Judge rejected the objections of the appellants and made the award rule of the Court vide impugned judgment and decree, dated 26- 7-1999, hence this appeal.
5. Mr. Zahid Malik, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the award was passed witch hearing the appellants and the same was liable to be set aside and further argued that award on the face of it being illegal, the trial Court had jurisdiction to set aside the same even if the objection& were barred by time.
6. Mr. Basharatullah learned counsel for the respondent stated that objections regarding the award were filed beyond the prescribed period and further stated that no application for condemnation of delay and extension of time was filed by the appellants, therefore, the award was rightly made rule of the Court.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record carefully.
Perusal of the record shows that the appellants were handed a copy of award on 14-9-1998 and was asked to file their objections as observed hereinabove due to inadvertence the file was consigned to record on the same day. Thereafter on 29-9-1998 to the extent of consignment of the record order, dated 14-9-1998, was recalled and the parties were directed to file their objections if any. The matter was then fixed on 8-10-1998, then adjourned to 19-10-1998 and to 21-11-1998. On the said date objections were filed, therein the validity of the award was challenged. The respondent filed their rejoinder to the objections filed by the appellants and the objections was opposed, that the same has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Mr. Zahid Malik learned counsel for the appellants argued that on 14-9-1998 the file was consigned to record, thus the objections could not be filed within the prescribed time and further contended that since the matter had to be referred to Islamabad for opinion, thus delay was caused in the said process.
8. We are not persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the appellants, even if the day limitation is counted from the date i,e, 29-4-1998 on which date the suit was revived even then the objections could not be filed within time as under Article 158 of Limitation Act prescribed for filing objections regarding an award is 30 days. The contention of Mr.Basharatullah learned counsel has substance that the objections were filed beyond the prescribed limit of 30 days, no application for condemnation of delay or extension of time were filed. The contention that since the award had to be sent to Islamabad for opinion and then delay was caused is baseless and repelled. It is noted that no such ground was taken by the appellants before the trial Court while filing objections, thus the ground agitated by the appellants could not be considered by us at appellate stage. The learned Senior Civil Judge while making award rule of the Court has rightly rejected the objections being barred by time. In this regard we are fortified with the dictum laid down in the case of Ganesh Chandra Misra, Petitioner v. Artatrana Misra and others AIR 1965 Orissa 17, wherein the following observations were made:--- "Under section 16(c) of the Act, the Court may remit the award for reconsideration where an objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the fact of it. In cases of this nature alone, the Court has the jurisdiction to examine the award even if no objection is raised or the objection is barred by limitation. The very authority relied upon by Mr. Murty does not go beyond this limit. In this case there is illegality apparent on the face of the award and no such question was raised in the Courts below. This Court has, therefore, no inherent jurisdiction to examine the legality of the award on the ground raised in the application under section 33 which is barred by limitation."
9. Regarding the next contention of Mr.Zahid Malik, Advocate that the award was passed without giving any opportunity to the appellants, we are not inclined to agree with the learned counsel.
Perusal of the award and proceedings before the Arbitrator reveal that many opportunities were given to the appellants to lead evidence and after hearing both the parties the Arbitrator gave award. The learned counsel failed to point out any illegality apparent on the face of award. It may be observed that the Arbitrator has passed the award, after taking into consideration the claim put forth by the respondent and the objections raised by the appellant and after due deliberation with reasoning as awarded an amount of Rs,10,76,113 which is much less than the amount actually claimed by the respondent in the plaint, thus the contention of learned counsel for the appellants being without substance is turned down.
10. Mr. Basharatullah, learned counsel for the respondent argued that since the suit has been pending since 1986 and the contract for the construction of the F.S.F. Headquarters was awarded in the year 1977 and on the directions of the appellants the said work was stopped, thus in such view of the matter the respondent is entitled to compensatory costs as the claim of the respondent was also admitted by the Arbitrator. As such we are inclined to grant an amount of Rs, 20,000 as compensatory costs to be paid to the respondent.
11. For the forgoing reasons we see no merits in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.