' This judgment, shall dispose of the instant F.A.O. No,238 of 2000, as also F.A.O. No,239 of 2000 and F.A.O. No,240 of 2000, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these matters. It may be pertinent to mention that the appeals are being disposed off without summoning the record as according to the learned counsel for the parties, the matters can be decided on the basis of the available record.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, that in view of an arbitration agreement, between the appellants and respondent No,1, the parties, for the resolution of their dispute, referred the matter to the arbitration. The arbitrators pronounced their award on 30-12-1997. Respondent No,1, moved an application under section 14(2) read with section 17 of the Arbitration Act, for filing of award by the arbitrators and making it a rule of the Court. On this application, notice was issued to the appellants for 5-3-1998. On 5-3-1998, counsel for respondent No,1, was present, whereas according to the order sheet, Nazeer Ahmed, X.E.N. Highway was present in the Court; it was observed in the order, dated 5-3-1998 that the award has been filed; the case was adjourned to 6-4-1998 for objections to the award; appellants filed objections on the said date, which have been rejected by the learned Civil Judge vide impugned order, dated 3-5-2000, holding the same to be barred by time, being filed after thirty days of the notice of filing the award in view of Article 158 of the Limitation Act. No significant determination about the validity or otherwise, of the award has been made by the learned trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that appellant No,1,is the Province of Punjab, who was not represented on 3-5-1998; Nazeer Ahmed X.E.N. Was not authorized on behalf of the Government to appear before the Court, therefore, when the award was filed in the Court on 5-3- 1998, no notice about filing of the award was ever served upon appellant No,1, resultantly without a valid notice, objection cannot be rendered as beyond time.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent by placing reliance on Province of West Pakistan (Punjab) etc. v. Mian Abdul Hamid & Co. (1985 CLC 1170), contends that the starting point of limitation to file objections is from the date, when information is received by a party intending to object to the award. As in the instant case on 5-3-1998, appellants were represented through Nazir Ahmed X.E.N.
Of the concerned Department, thus notice for filing of award was duly served upon the appellants and objection filed by them on 6-4-1998, are beyond time i,e, one day after 30 days, as required by Article 158 of the Limitation Act.
5. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the provisions of Order 27 rule 4, where a Government is a defendant/respondent to a litigation, notice can only be served upon the Government through Secretary of the concerned department or through District Attorney/Government pleader. In the instant case, notice on the application under section 14(2) for direction to the arbitrator to file award was neither served upon such Secretary nor the District Attorney/Government pleader. Even if this notice is deemed to have been duly served, it would only be relevant for the purpose of the proceedings qua the directions to the arbitrators to file the award in the Court, which is the first stage in dealing with the application under section 14(2). After filing of this award, it was the duty of the Court to have issued a fresh notice to the appellants intimating to them about the award having been filed in the Court, enabling them to file objections to the award, section 14(2) contemplates two notices, one when an application is moved for the purpose of filing the award in the Court and even if a party does not opt to contest such application, though it had been served, and is not before the Court on the date, when the award in pursuance of first notice is filed, second notice under section 14(2) about filing of award enabling the other party to have knowledge of this fact, so as to file objection, must again be served. First notice contemplated under section 14(2) is the one, which directs the filing of the award, but when the award is filed, a second notice has to be issued. The notice before filing of the award is pre- mature and would not be relevant and a substitute for the mandatory notice of filing of award in the Court. But if the parties are present before the Court, even through the recognized agents/pleader, when the order of the filing is passed, such order can be deemed to be sufficient compliance of the issuance of second notice. However, in the present case, Nazeer Ahmed XEN who appeared before the Court on 5-3-1998, was not at all authorized person to represent on behalf of the Provincial Government, who is main party in the matter, and has to ultimately discharged the liability under the award. No power of attorney or any authority of any nature, was seen by the Court, to mention in the order dated 5-3-1998 that Nazeer Ahmed, XEN, represents respondents Nos.1 to 3 in the application under section 14(2), consequently, presence of Nazeer Ahmed, XEN, for the purpose of imparting information to him as an information or notice to the appellants about the filing of award is irrelevant.
6. Even otherwise, according to application under section 14(2), filed by respondent in paragraph No,5, it is stated that "the award announced by the arbitrators needs to be got filed in the Court and after its filing the notices are to be served to the respondent to this effect for further proceedings". This clearly establish that respondent himself requested the Court to issue fresh notice to the appellant once award was filed, therefore, the earlier notice issued to the appellant before filing of the award on the application would not be a substitute for the notice of the filing of the award, when as mentioned earlier, appellants, were not represented by Nazeer Ahmed, XEN, who was not particularly authorized to represent the Government of Punjab.
In the light of above, learned trial Court has erroneously by invoking the provisions of section 158 of the Limitation Act, had rejected the objections of the appellant on the score of limitation, therefore, such order cannot be sustained, which is hereby set aside. Objection of the appellant would be deemed to be pending before the Court, which should be decided on merits in accordance with law. /Order accordingly.