' This civil revision is directed against the order, dated 14-3-2000 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 5 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Lahore Development Authority on 12-4-1988 awarded a contract.To Messrs Nazir & Company (Pvt.) Limited for the construction of PECO Road, Lahore. Time stipulated for completion of work was six months and total cost estimated was Rs,1,40,00,000. The company did not complete the work so time was extended on its application up to 30-4-1999. It is stated by the L.D.A. That even in the extended period the respondent contractor could not complete the work. On 20-6-1992 the contractor stated to have been made an application to the Director Roads for the payment of Rs,49,94,385. On 3-3-1993 the contractor filed a claim for arbitration in the light of the Arbitration clause contained in the contract. It is stated that as the arbitrator failed to deliver award, therefore, an application was made in the Court for their removal which was accepted on 11-1-1996. Messrs Nazir & Company, the contractor nominated Mr. Justice (Retd.) S.A.
Manan as arbitrator and a Civil Judge vide its order, dated 14-10-1999 appointed him as the sole arbitrator. The contractor filed a fresh claim before the arbitrator for a sum of Rs,1,56,31,246.
3. On 23-12-1999 Lahore Development Authority filed an application under section 5 read with section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for the revocation of the reference made to the Arbitrator. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence the present civil revision.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the provision of section 5 of the Arbitration Act and wrongly held that the application was premature and dismissed the same. Section 5 of the Arbitration Act postulates that the authority of an appointed arbitrator or umpire shall not be revocable except with the leave of the Court, unless a contrary intention is expressed in the arbitration agreement. The application filed by the A petitioner was for seeking the revocation of the authority of arbitrator. This section applies to those cases in which the authority of an appointed arbitrator or umpire subsists which is sought to be revoked. Revocation means withdrawal, recall, annulment or repudiation. There may be B various circumstances and reasons for seeking the revocation of an appointed arbitrator. In the instant case the Civil Judge has wrongly c equated the application under section 5 with that of an objection under section 33. In pith and substance the application filed by the petitioner was under section 5 seeking the revocation of authority of the arbitrator and it ought to have been decided by the trial Court on its own merits. In the instant case the trial Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.
' In view of my finding hereinbefore I accept this civil revision and set aside the impugned order, dated 14-3-2000 passed by the Civil Judge First Class, Lahore and the case is remanded back to his Court so as to decide the application of the respondent afresh within the parameter of section 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.