JUDGMENT DR. MUNIR AHMAD MUGHAL, J. - This is a civil revision under Section 115, C.P.C, seeking setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees of both the Courts below whereby the learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad, dismissed the appeal on 17.4.2000 and upheld, the findings of the learned Trial Court whereby the learned Civil Judge lst Class, Faisalabad vide order dated 20.3.1999 the award was made Rule of the Court with costs and the petitioners were directed to make the payment under the award within 30 days.
2. The respondents filed application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Civil Court at Faisalabad on 20.3.1980 stating therein the alleged dispute be referred to the Arbitrator,who decided the same in accordance with law. The application was resisted in writing. However, by consent of the parties on 9.12.1986 two arbitrators were nominated by each party who announced the award and. Filed the same in the Court on 30.3.1988 for Rs. 5,442.00 and that the Civil Court invited objections on the award in consequence of which the petitioner filed the objection petition which was contested by the respondent and three issues were framed. Evidence was led and the objections were dismissed and the award was made the Rule of the Court by the judgment and decree dated 20.3.1999. An appeal was preferred but the same was dismissed by the learned Addl.
District Judge, Faisalabad on 17.4.2000. The petitioner seeks revival of both the judgments dated 20.3.1999 and 17.4.2000. The only point on which the revision petition was admitted to regular hearing was as to whether the award could be filed after the lapse of the stipulated period and made the rule of the Court?
3.Arguments have been heard at length.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that after the lapse of the stipulated period neither the award could be filed nor it could be made the rule of the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once the award has been filed and party had no objection and took part in the proceedings even after the expiry of stipulated period*it cannot be allowed to raise objection in the Court.
6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.
7. A similar question had arisen and repelled in the case of Haji Ghulam Mohyuddin Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1967 Lahore 204) by a Division Bench of this Court presided by my learned brothers Inamullah Khan, C.J. And Karam Elahi Chauhan, J. And it was observed by their Lordships as under:- "The fifth point raised by the learned counsel was that the arbitrator in this case had given the award after 4 months of his entering upon the reference and the same as such was void being in violation of paragraph 3 of the 1st Schedule attached to the Arbitration Act, 1940, provisions whereof were to be considered as implied terms of the Arbitration Agreement as laid down in Section 3 of the Act. No doubt the award in this case was given beyond four months, but the point to be notice is that the provisions of the lst Schedule simply because the terms of the Arbitration Agreement and did not acquire a status higher than that. The proposition is well-settled that if the terms of any agreement are not complied with in this respect, the consequence is not that the award becomes invalid. If from the conduct of the parties concerned it can be inferred that they agreed to the proceedings being continued beyond the period stipulated, then the objection loses all the significance. This proposition was thrashed out fully in a Division Bench ruling of this Court reported in Haji Sattar Haji Muhammad and 9 others v. Abdul Karim Haji Issa and 3 others (PLD 1958 Kar. 378) where it was laid down that the provisions of the lst Schedule do not acquire any greater status than becoming implied terms of the Arbitration Agreement, it has been . Laid down in numerous rulings that when a party continues to take part in arbitration proceedings after the period stipulated in the agreement for concluding those proceedings, and does not take objection to their continuation, then he cannot raise this objection afterwards. Reference can be made to Meman Tayab Sharif and another v. Kasam Adamji, Haji Abdu! Latif Ebrahim Bavani and others (PLD 1955 Sindh 224), Bibi Patto Kumari Saheba v. Upendra Nath Ghosh (50 IC 52), Messrs Habib & Sons v.
Messrs Virk Co. (PLD 1957 Kar. 245), Donald Campbell & Co. v. Jeshraj Girdhari Lai (AIR 1920 PC 123), Asa v. Mst. Bhuran (AIR 1936 Lah. 466), Madura Mills Cos., Ltd. v. N.M.S. Jrusgaba Ayyar (AIR 1937 Mad.
405), Nani Bala shah w/o Narayan Chandra shah v. Ram Gopal shah and another, minors, represented by pleader guardian Babu Kumar, Gurukrama, Mozumdar And another (AIR 1945 Cal.
19) and Madipalli Venkatachellam v. Madipalli Surya narayan amurty and others (AIR 1941 Mad.
129).
In view of the above weight of authorities we hold that the award cannot become invalid in the instant case due to the mere fact that it was not given within four months, the reason being that the appellant did not raise this objection at the proper time and rather acquiesced in the continuance of the Arbitration proceedings, led evidence and took the chance of a favourable decision and when the decision has gone against him he cannot be allowed to say that the arbitration proceedings extended beyond the time limit implied in the Arbitration Agreement. If the terms of an agreement can be changed by the parties by their mutual consent (as for example by writing), then it is obvious that the terms about time matter could also be changed with their consent implied from their conduct, In the instant case the consent of the appellant in continuation of these proceedings is obvious because he raised no objection with regard to it at any stage of the case before the arbitrator and it is the finding of the learned Appellate Court as well."
8. For the above reasons, the revision petition has got no merits and the same is dismissed.