' Through this judgment I intend to dispose of Civil Revision No,30 of 2001 and Civil Revision No,3I of 2001 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both of them.
2. These petitions are directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha dated 20-112000 maintaining the decree of the trial Court dated 16-4-1995 whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner under sections 14/17 of the Arbitration Act for making the arbitration award; dated 12-11-1989 rule of the Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application under sections 14/17 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sargodha alleging therein that the dispute between them and respondents Nos.1 to 5 regarding Plot No,49 situated in Khasra Nos.12, 13 and 14 Chak No,45/NB Grain Market, Sargodha regarding its ownership and possession, parties appointed respondents Nos.6 to 10 as arbitrators vide agreement dated 9-9-1989 for settlement of dispute between them. The arbitrators summoned the petitioners and respondents Nos.1 to 5. They were provided opportunity of hearing, their versions were heard and thereafter arbitrators declared petitioners as owners in possession of Khasra Nos.12 and 13 of Plot No,49 and respondents Nos.1 to 5 owners in possession of Khasra No,14 of the said plot vide arbitration award dated 12-11-1989. The award was announced in presence of the parties. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 promised to get the award made rule of the Court, thereafter they refused and, such, the petitioners instituted the application to make it rule of the Court.
4. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 resisted the petition by filing separate written replies raising preliminary objections besides contesting it on merits. The arbitrators, however, did not contest the petition and submitted conceding written reply. Respondents Nos.1 to 5 also tiled objection against the award which were opposed by the petitioners.
5. In connected petition Umer Din and others petitioners tiled an application under sections 30 to 33 of the Arbitration Act for cancellation of arbitration agreement and award dated 9-9-1989 and 12-11-1989 respectively, contending that petitioner No,1 now deceased was allotted Plot No,49 Grain market, Sargodha measuring 15 Marlas, 254 Sq. Ft. By the Settlement Department. Transfer Order and Permanent Transfer Deed have been issued in his favour, the mutation was also sanctioned on the basis of PTD of the aforesaid plot consisting of Khasra Nos.12, 13 and 14 and he has constructed two stotrey building on the said plot. Photo copy of the plan was annexed and respondents Nos.I to 9 are relatives of petitioner No,l. He handed over to them four rooms of the lower storey for temporary residence. They began to reside there and after 1-1/4 year a dispute arose between the parties regarding vacation of the rooms by respondents Nos.1 to 9. The matter culminated into criminal proceedings and in order to resolve the controversy of criminal case respondents Nos.1 to 13 were appointed as arbitrators but the arbitrators got signed arbitration agreement by respondent No,1 fraudulently regarding ownership of disputed house. The said agreement was not read over to them, their signatures were procured through misrepresentation and fraud has been committed by the respondents, therefore, the arbitration agreement dated 9-9-1989 and award are liable to be set aside. Learned trial Judge on divergent pleadings of the parties framed consolidated issues, recorded evidence of the parties, heard their learned counsel and accepted the application of respondents for making award rule of the Court and the petitioners' application for cancellation of arbitration agreement and award was dismissed. Petitioners preferred two appeals but both were dismissed through impugned judment, hence the present revisions.
6. Mr. C.M. Lat if Rawn learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the arbitrators have not given any reason in terms of section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The award on this ground alone is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has referred section 26-A of the Arbitration Act and relied upon Wazir Khan and 8 others v. Sardar Ali and 25 others (2001 SCM R 750).
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has supported the impugned judgment and referred Dr. Kalida Malik and 2 others v. Mst. Farida Malik and 7 others (1994 M LD 2348)
(Quetta) and Muhammad Saghir Bhatti & Sons v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (PLD 1958 Supreme Court 221).
8. Heard. Record perused. The point for determination is whether the arbitrators have given any reasons as required under section 26-A of the Arbitration Act in award dated 12-11-1989. The perusal of the award indicates that the parties were summoned. They produced documentary evidence to substantiate their contentions and thereafter the arbitrators concluded that Umar Din son of Ghulam Nabi is in possession of Khasra No,14 of Plot No,49 and the other party is in possession of Khasra Nos.12 and 13 which consists of four rooms and two verandas. The arbitrators further declared that the parties are owners and in possession of their respective shares and the land which is not in possession of either of them is not entitled to retain it. The land under use as street will remain in common use of parties and none of them will claim its exclusive ownership.
This award is not devoid of reasons. In the referred case of Division Bench of Quetta High Court it was observed at page 2360 as under:-- "An award is an adjudication and decision by the arbitrator or arbitrators upon the matter or issues as referred to it in the agreement. It is thus, final determination of the list between the parties who according to their own concurrence authorised the arbitrators to finally settle their dispute through arbitration. An award is not necessarily a reasoned judicial decision giving detailed reasons for the arbitrator's conclusions. However, ' it is an intelligible decision which defines the right of the parties, in relation to the subject-matter of the reference is of that is required'. The arbitrators are not bound to state as to why they came to such conclusion, until it is provided in the reference. It is not necessary for the arbitrators to give detailed reasons. What is important in this respect is whether the arbitrators gave a decision finally determining the issues or not and if it is found that the award is in consonance with reference and is an intelligible decision of the terms of reference it cannot be set aside. Mere fact that the arbitrators in the present case concluded proceedings in presence of the parties only in one sitting shall not provide a ground to set aside the same to term it something else than an award."
' The Supreme Court also observed in the case of Muhammad Saghir Bhatti & Sons that the arbitrators are not bound to state their reasons for the award.
9. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners only contemplates that where the reasons are not recorded by the arbitrator the Court should remit the same to the arbitrator. In the aforesaid case no reasons whatsoever was given, therefore, the Supreme Court observed that in such eventuality the award could be remitted to the arbitrators.
Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act also provides the same condition.
9-A. As discussed above the arbitrators have given reasons in the award. They provided sufficient opportunity to the parties, heard them, examined their documents, respective possession and thereafter declared the award. The award in the instant case is not without reasons as alleged by the petitioners.
10. The concurrent findings of both the Courts below are based on proper assumption of law and facts and warrant no interference under revisional jurisdiction. Both the petitions have no merit and are dismissed with no order as to costs.