' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment dated 23-2-1994 of a learned Judge in Chamber, Lahore High Court, whereby F.A.O. No,214 of 1993 filed by the appellant challenging the order, dated 7-11-1993 of learned Civil Judge, Lahore, was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal briefly stated are that respondent is a Private Limited Company and it entered into an agreement with the appellant to construct a hatchery for the latter. Dispute arose between the parties over non-payment of due amount, the quality of work and non-completion of the work undertaken by the respondent. In accordance with the agreement these disputes were referred to Sole Arbitrator, Anwar Ali, who gave his Award, which on 23-5-1991 was made rule of the Court. By mutual consent, some amendments were brought therein and one of the clauses of the modified Award reads as under:-- ' "M/s. Waheed Brothers (Pakisan) Ltd., shall prepare two Bank cheques in favour of M/s. Izhar (Pvt.)
Ltd., as spelled out in item II above for making payment to the Contractor on satisfactory completion of above repairs. A joint team of representatives one each from both sides shall undertake the inspections and give a certificate to the sole Arbitrator about the satisfactory completion of the work before first cheque covering full payments in respect of items II-(i), (iii), (iv) and (v), is released to the Contractor, as per instructions of the Sole Arbitrator. As for the other payment pertaining to item II(ii), the same shall be released after repainting work is completed to the full satisfaction of the Employer."
3. On 23-1-1992 the respondent moved an application for execution of the Award, as incorporated in the decree. It claimed that it was entitled to receive an amount of Rs,9,08,325/46 under decree and that said amount was being withheld illegally by the appellant. The appellant filed objections, which were dismissed. Later on, the appellant challenged the order before High Court, but without any success.
4. The case of the appellant is that it was entitled, under the amended Award, to have the work completed at the risk and cost of the respondent and that it had completed the work at the cost of Rs,19,36,000 and after deducting the sum payable to the respondent it was entitled to obtain Rs,10,17,987 from the respondent.
5. The following issues were settled by the learned executing Court:-
(1) Whether the execution petition filed by Izhar Ltd., is fake, false, vexatious and is not maintainable? OPR
(2) Whether the objection petitioner Waheed Brother is stopped by his conduct to file this objection petition? OPR
(3) Whether the execution is full of misrepresentations and distortions of facts? If so, its effect? OPR
(4) Whether the objection petitioner did not allow the decree-holder to carry out the work of re- filling the cracks as the hatchery Plant/Machinery to be closed for the completion of the Job? OPR
(5) Whether the objection petitioner himself committed the breach of the original contract as well as of the Award? If so, its effect? OPR
(6) Whether the job in question has been completed and the petitioner Izhar Pvt. Ltd., is entitled to recover a sum of Rs,09,08,325/46? OPA
(7) Whether the Izhar (Pvt.) Ltd. Intentionally failed to comply with the terms of the Award and Waheed Brothers are entitled to recover a sum of Rs,10,17,987 in view of the averments made in the petition under Order 20, Rules 19, C.P.C.? OPA
(8) Relief."
6. Learned Executing Court decided the Issues Nos.(1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) in favour of the respondent and while doing so in details examined the evidence brought on record by the parties.
For Issue No,4 learned Executing Court held that the respondent had not carried out the work of cracks filling, which could be done at the cost of Rs,25,000 said amount was ordered to be deducted from the total amount claimed by the respondent. The finding on Issue No,7 was that the appellant carried out the chemical treatment against the spirit of the. Award without seeking permission from the Arbitrators, whereas the respondent had completed the 7 layer-treatment and held that the appellant was not entitled to recover any amount from the respondent. Under the circumstances, learned Executing Court accepted the execution application of the respondent to the extent of Rs,8,58,325/46 and directed the appellant to pay said amount to the respondent. Said Court also dismissed appellant's application under Order XX Rule 19 of the C.P.C.
7. Vide order, dated 20-11-1995 leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the Executing Court and High Court, without any justification, overruled, the objections raised by the appellant and varied the decree to the disadvantage of the appellant.
8. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the Award, which learned Civil Court made the rule of Court by its order, dated 23-5-1991 was, in fact, a new agreement between the parties and was itself not capable, of execution. Learned counsel also argued that the Executing Court could not go beyond the decree based on amended Award and all that it could do was to execute the decree as it was. It is also urged that the respondent had never done required work, as such, there was no question of its inspection. Learned counsel also referred to the letter at pages 70, 72, 80 and 81 of the paper book to contend that the respondent failed to discharge its duties.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the record.
10. The contract between the parties was executed on 11-5-1988. It contained an arbitration clause.
On 2-5-1989 the parties also executed a contract of indemnity, which also contained an arbitration clause. Pursuance to latter contract Mr. Anwar Ali Architect was appointed as sole arbitrator. Before Civil Court the parties entered into compromise and with their consent, the arbitrator modified his award and the award so modified was made rule of the Court. The importance of modified award cannot be downplayed by calling it as a "new agreement", which in fact was a consent document and reflected the unanimous view of the parties expressed therein.
11. It is evident from record that the appellant did not approach the sole arbitrator either complaining that the respondent had failed to carry out the work within the stipulated time or the work done by it was not according to the specification and of the same quality, which was agreed between the parties or that the same was defective. The record shows that no representative was appointed by the appellant as was agreed between the parties for carrying out joint inspection, while the respondent had appointed Mr. Rauf Ahmed, Civil Engineer, as its representative, who was examined as a witness. It is also established from record that necessary work was completed up to 15-7-1991 and only a portion of roof remained incomplete and that too for the reason that the officials of the appellant working on the site did not allow the respondent to complete the work on the ground that in case they would stop the cooler there was likelihood that the birds would die.
The said work, however, was completed on 8-8-1991 when the coolers were stopped. This clearly establishes that the delay, if any, in completion of the work was due to the lapse on the part of the appellant.
12. The appellant claimed that the work was got done through chemical treatment for which it claimed an amount of Rs,10,17,787. It is noted that this claim was not justified for the reason that, as per Award, the respondent was not obliged to complete the work through chemical treatment, as such, no claim based on that ground against the respondent was justified. Both the executing Court and High Court held that the works of filling cracks as well as, painting was not completed due to the conduct of the appellant. There is no substance in the arguments that the Award of learned Civil Judge, dated 23-5-1991 was, in fact, based upon new agreement. If the entire facts are looked into in their true perspective the factual position becomes absolutely clear and leads to the conclusion that the award made rule of the Court having taken into consideration all the evidence brought on record by the parties.
13. As regards, the letter referred by learned counsel for the appellant, suffice it to say that these letters are part of the correspondence exchanged between the parties and can neither be looked in isolation nor these letters by themselves are sufficient to discard the entire evidence brought on record. All the circumstances, including mentioned in these letters, were indepth examined by the two Courts below and thereafter, the findings were, recorded.
14. Primarily, the vowed object of getting the dispute settled through arbitration is to by pass lengthy procedure involved in civil cases. In fact, it is domestic Tribunal, controlled by the chosen representatives/arbitrators, of the parties who are imbibed with the spirit of doing complete justice between the parties as early as possible without getting themselves unnecessarily involved in technicalities embodied in procedural law. The role of the Courts under Arbitration Act, 1940 principally is of supervisory nature and not that of appellate power under C.P.C. An award may be modified or corrected when it falls within the scope of section 15 of the Act and it can be set aside if it is governed by section 30. There is no provision for review in the Act.
15. The concurrent findings have been recorded by the executing Court and High Court and no legal flaw has been pointed out nor it is the case of misreading or non-reading of the evidence nor there is any justification for exercising jurisdiction under sections 15 and 30 of the Act. No legal point has been raised. The factual aspect in details has been discussed by the Courts below and we do not find any ground to interference in the findings recorded by High Court.