' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur dated 15-2-1993, whereby Civil Miscellaneous Application No,224 of 1988/BWP, under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, of Anwar Khan and Zulfiqar Khan respondents Nos.2 and 3, was treated as an application under section 151, C.P.C. And by allowing the same, recalled its earlier order dated 6-2-1988 dismissing R.S.A. No,66 of 1985/BWP of the appellants in accordance with the decision of the referee and the R.S.A. No,66 of 1985/BWP was restored to its original number for decision on merits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28-10-1978 Wazir Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Minchinabad for possession in respect of land as described in para. 1 of the plaint, measuring 178 Kanals situated in Mouza Idlana Dhuddi, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar against Qutab Din etc. Respondents, challenging the validity of Sale Mutation No,293 dated 21-94959 purportedly executed on his behalf in favour of Qutab Din defendant/respondent No,4 and subsequent Sale Mutation No,296 on behalf of said Qutab Din in favour of defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 4 and further Mutations Nos.463 and 464 regarding exchange of the disputed land with the rest of the defendants, to be illegal, without consideration, forged, collusive and inoperative against his rights. It was alleged that he was owner of the land in dispute and Qutab Din respondent No,4 in connivance with the Revenue Staff and father of respondents Nos.1 to 3, got Sale Mutation No,293 sanctioned in his favour whereas he had neither sold the land to him nor he had received any consideration thereof. It was further averred by him that in the year 1971 when respondents Nos.1 to 3 tried to interfere with his possession, he came to know about the fraud. He then submitted application to the Martial Law Authorities which was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar, who vide his order dated 12-5-1971 ordered cancellation of Mutations Nos.293 and 296, which on the acceptance of their appeal were restored by the Additional Commissioner. The plaintiff/predecessor of the appellants then instituted the present suit which was contested by the defendants. In view of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 26-5- 1983 decreed the suit. Appeal thereagainst was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar vide his judgment dated 8-6-1985. The respondents challenged the concurrent judgments of the Courts below before the Lahore-High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur vide R.S.A. No,66 of 1985/B.W.P. During the pendency of the R.S.A., Sardar Ali respondent No,1 and Abdul Rehman, one of the legal heirs of Wazir Khan, filed a joint application dated 15-12-1987 praying that Prof. Dr. Noor Muhammad Ghaffari may be appointed as arbitrator and his decision would be binding on the parties. On 16-12-1987, the High Court passed the following order on the said Applications Nos.1189 and 1190 of 1987 /BWP .
"16-12-1987. Mr. M.M. Bhatti, Advocate for the Appellants.
' Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir, Advocate for learned counsel for Respondent No,1.
' Sardar Ali, one of the Appellants, is present in person.
' Abdul Rehman, Legal Representative of Wazir Khan and the attorney for the other respondents is present in person.
' Both the parties have appointed Dr. Noor Muhammad Ghaffari of Islamic University, Islamabad as their referee. They want to have his award. To appear for the said award on 6-2-1988."
' In compliance with the above order of the High Court, the referee submitted the following report on 26-12-1987:- ' "After studying the pros and cons of the case and listening the detailed arguments of the parties involved and knowing the facts from the well-informed persons of the area, I am sure that this land belongs to Wazir Ali and the others. The appeal of Sardar Ali and the others against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar dated 8-6-1985 holds no force and the same is hereby dismissed."
' After receipt of the report of the referee, the High Court vide order dated 6-2-1988 dismissed the RSA as under:-- "6-2-1988. Mr. M.M. Bhatti, Advocate, for the Appellants. Mian Allah Nawaz, Advocate for Respondent No,1 .
' Both the parties had concurred that they would abide by the award., of the referee namely Professor Doctor Noor Muhammad Ghafari. The referee has submitted a report and has stated therein that the appeal may be dismissed. According to the decision of the referee the R.S.A. Is dismissed. I make no order as to costs."
' Against this order Anwar Ali and Zulfiqar Ali respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Dated 6-3-1988 for setting aside the above order of the High Court, which was treated as application under section 151, C.P.C. And while exercising inherent jurisdiction it was accepted vide order impugned herein as stated in para. 1 above. Leave was granted to consider:- "The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the minors having transferred their interest never appeared in any proceedings in any Court. It was contended that in view of the specific provision for setting aside the decree, inherent jurisdiction of the Court could not have been exercised. Leave is granted. The parties are restrained from alienating the property in dispute."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
4. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that respondents Nos.2 and 3 were duly represented by their counsel, therefore, they could not take any exception to the order dated 6-2-1988 and that application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Could not be treated by the High Court to be an application under section 151, C.P.C. And thus the impugned order passed on such application is without lawful authority. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the impugned order argued that in view of section 21 of the Arbitration Act (X of 1940) (hereinafter to be called as the Act), in a pending case the matter could only be referred to arbitration if all the parties interested had agreed to reference and with the concurrence of all the parties, the Court could make an order of reference and when all the parties had not joined for reference, the award given on such reference would be invalid and defective.
5. We do not find any substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. The perusal of the application (C.M. 1190 of 1987) would show that it was filed by Sardar Ali and Abdul .Rehman wherein they had stated that the parties have appointed Prof. Dr. Noor Muhammad Ghaffari as. Arbitrator and have agreed to be bound by his decision. In fact this application was made by Sardar Ali and Abdul Rehman only and the applicants in C.M. 224 of 1988/BWP and the other legal heirs of Wazir Ali which also included minors were not party in it as they had not been joined in that application as such, the application for reference was not filed with the concurrence of all the parties interested as required by section 21 of the Act, therefore, the reference made by the Court on such application was defective and the award given was invalid. The phrase 'both the parties' used in application (C.M. 1190 of 1987/BWP) is relatable to the parties of the application and not to the absentees appellants and respondents which included the minors. Before passing any decree on the basis of the award the Court was supposed to see whether reference was competently made and whether award was valid and proper as required by law. Under section 17 of the Act the Court was required to look into the award to satisfy itself that the same was proper and in accordance with law and that it did not require reconsideration by the arbitrator and after the expiry of the period for making the application to set aside the award, pronounce judgment and pass a decree accordingly to the award. In this case, it appears that the Court before passing the order did not examine the award in the light of the provisions of sections 17 and 26-A of the Act and passed a mechanical order. Section 26-A of the Act provides that the Arbitrator must state the reasons for the award in sufficient detail to enable the Court to consider the question of law arising out of the award and where the award does not state the reasons in sufficient detail, the Court should remit the award to the Arbitrator to give reasons for the award. The provisions of section 26- A of the Act are mandatory and if the award has been given without recording any reason therefor, the Court would remit the award to the Arbitrator. The award in the instant case was given without recording any reason, therefore, the Court should have remitted the award to the Arbitrator to give reasons. Since the mandatory provisions of sections 17 and 26-A of the Act have not been complied with, therefore, the award was invalid and unmaintainable.
6. As far as application of section.151, C.P.C. To the present case is concerned, the same has been correctly applied as this section empowers the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice. This section begins with non obstante clause that "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Court" which empowers the Court to make any order which may be necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court notwithstanding the codal procedure. It has been observed above that the order of the Court in terms of the award which was violative of sections 17 and 26-A of the Act was illegal and unmaintainable, therefore, the Court had wide powers to convert the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Into an application under section 151, C.P.C. So as to undo the wrong in the ends of justice.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.