FARRUKH LATEEF, J.--- With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties it is being treated as an admitted case.
Vide order dated 25.3.2003 names of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (Arbitration) were deleted.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision are that an application was submitted by the respondent to Civil Judge, Arifwala alleging that there was a dispute between him and the respondents regarding money matter for the settlement whereof they had appointed Syed Asad Hussain Azal and Muhammad Jameel Butt as Arbitrators who had given the award on 1.5.1995. It was prayed that the same be made as rule of the Court.
3. Application was opposed by the respondent. After framing of issue and recording evidence it was accepted by the Civil Judge, Arifwala vide order dated 25.9.2000.
4. Respondents' appeal against that order was dismissed by ADJ Arifwala vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2002. The aforesaid orders of Civil Judge and the ADJ are assailed in the Civil Revision by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that order and judgment of the two Courts below suffer from non-reading and mis-reading of evidence; both the learned Courts below had not correctly examined and appraised the evidence; that authority was not given to the arbitrators to appoint any person to assist them hence the evidence of the assistants so appointed by the Arbitrators could not be relied upon and that award was not properly pred.
6. Civil revision is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. Arguments heard. Revision petition and its annexures perused.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material evidence which was allegedly overlooked or mis-read. Neither their appears to be in mis-reading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been over-looked in the impugned order and judgment.
9. The respondent had admitted during his statement that he had executed affidavit regarding appointment of arbitrator but alleged it was got executed by him under coercion. Said plea of coercion was not taken-up by him in his reply to the application. Hence, said portion of his statement could not be looked into and was rightly ignored by the Courts below. A point having not been taken regarding factual .Position could not be allowed to be asserted during the evidence.
10. Muhammad Jameel Butt one of the arbitrators had said that he did not sign the award but the award Ex.PA/1 contained signatures purporting to be that Of the said witness. It was not alleged 'by the witness that his signatures on the award were forged.
11. The award was duly proved by the witness and the scribe.
12. If authority was not given to the arbitrators for appointing assistants it is not of much significance because the award was not made by the assistants. Even if the testimony of the assistants is excluded still there was enough evidence on record to establish that the arbitrators were appointed and they had given that award.
13. Concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below are based on evidence and also supported by plausible reasoning. The impugned order and the judgment also do not suffer from jurisdictional infirmity.
14. For the reasons stated above this Civil Revision, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed. .