' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, dated 22-2-2001, passed in Civil Revision Application No,15 of 1991.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondents filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of their share in respect of property bearing City Survey No,A-1227-28, situated in Shahi Bazar, Old Sukkur. The prayer of the respondents in suit was for a declaration to the effect that they are owners of the property to the extent of 50 paisa share being legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Himayat Khan. They also prayed for a direction against the petitioner to pay Rs,850 per month to them from the month of May, 1989 onwards being 50 paisa share from the income of six shops constructed on the ground floor of the property. The respondents, by way of permanent injunction, sought to restrain the petitioner from disturbing their peaceful possession in suit property or from discontinuing the amenities and services.
3. The petitioner submitted written statement wherein he admitted the relationship of the respondent with him and the construction of six shops on the ground floor by ancestor of the parties late Muhammad Hidayat Khan as well as occupation of both the parties in two different portions of the property with regard to the payment of share of income from the shops. He further stated in his statement that since he had to pay Rs,1,000 as instalment of loan to the House Building Finance Corporation, outstanding against the property and he was paying gas and electricity charges he was not in a position to pay share of income demanded by the respondents. While the suit was pending, with the consent of the parties, Mr. Shariful Islam Fakhree, a Senior Advocate, was appointed as Sole Arbitrator, who after hearing the parties as well as their elders and after visiting the site, so as to know the real facts, submitted his award in the Court on 31-3-1990. It is further borne out from the record that when the award was filed Mr. Ghulam Hyder Ansari, learned counsel for the petitioner, was present and in addition Mr. Muhammad Sharif Burore, Advocate, also filed his power as well as the application for adjournment whereafter the suit was adjourned to 19-4-1990 for hearing of the award. On 19-5-1990 learned counsel for the petitioner filed objections to award, while the counsel for the respondents moved an application under section 150 of the Arbitration Act read with sections 151/152, C.P.C. On 27-5-1990, learned counsel for the petitioner filed another application under section 30 of the Arbitration Act praying for setting aside the award on the ground that no notice was ever served on him by the Arbitrator before filing of the award and that he was not in the knowledge of the award. He further alleged that a copy of the award was not supplied to him by the Arbitrator and that latter had misconducted the proceedings and that the award had been improperly procured.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, after hearing the parties, rejecting the objections of the learned counsel for the petitioner and decreed the suit by making award rule of the Court vide judgment dated 23-6-1990. The petitioner assailed the said judgment and decree before the District Judge, by way of appeal, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 4-11-1990. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur, through a revision application, which, too, was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 22-2-2001. Hence, this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that the Courts below did not consider the case and evidence in its proper perspective, which resulted in miscarriage of justice; that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself; that the award had been improperly procured; that the petitioner was not issued any notice by the. Arbitrator to show that he had filed the award in the Court, and that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law.
6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and minutely gone through the material placed on the record. Admittedly, the Arbitrator was appointed at the joint request of the parties. Perusal of the award itself would clearly show that the Arbitrator called the parties/their elders and made necessary inquiries about their case. He has also discussed the matter with the elders of the families of the parties, so as to know the real facts. According to the Arbitrator, the parties' elders, namely, Hafiz Shafaat Hussain, Hafiz Abdul Latif and Muhammad Ahmad were present during the proceedings. In the objections filed by the petitioner there was no allegation of misconduct or that the award was improperly procured. The contention that notice was not issued to the petitioner, is belied by the fact that at the time of filing of the award two Advocates on his behalf appeared in the Court and on various dates sought adjournments. It is not borne out from the record that the petitioner was not heard by the Arbitrator. On the contrary, the Arbitrator heard the parties and their elders so that there should be permanent settlement of the dispute between the parties, who are related inter se.
7. The Senior Civil Judge, the District Judge and the learned Single Judge in Chambers had considered the evidence in its proper perspective. We do not find misreading or non-reading of the evidence, or misconstruction of law, as alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner. There are concurrent findings of the Courts below. We also do not find that a question of public importance is involved in this case so as to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 185(3) of the Constitution.
8. For the above facts and reasons, we do not find any substance in this petition, which is dismissed and leave is refused.