' The parties had entered into a contract including an arbitration clause. Disputes arose between the parties and were referred to Arbitrators Mr. M. S. Zafar and Mr. Talib H. Rizvi. The said Arbitrators appointed Mr. Justice (R) Fazal Karim to act as an umpire. Vide proceedings dated 21-4-2001 the said Arbitrators directed the parties to file their claims before 12-5-2001. The petitioner filed its claim on 28-5-2001 and vide proceedings dated 25-6-2001 a copy of the same was sent to the respondent calling upon it to file reply by 17-7-2001. On 18-7-2001 it was noted that reply has not been filed. The case was adjourned to 22-9-2001. Since the period of 4 months was to expire before the said date the parties were also directed to get time extended. On 22-9-2001 it was noted that the respondent has filed comments. A direction to get time extended was repeated. On 11-12-2001 it was noted that respondent has filed an application in the civil Court for extension of time. On 22- 12-2001 issues were framed. On 13-4-2002 it was noted that the petitioner has consented to the continuation of proceedings. Respondent was also asked to do the needful. On 11-5-2002 an amendment was made in the issue. On 30-5-2002 the representatives of the two parties were present and consent was given to let arbitration proceedings continue. On the same day evidence of two witnesses of the petitioner was recorded. On 14-6-2002 it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that no further affirmative evidence is to be led, reserving the rebuttal. Some documents were produced. The evidence of a witness of the respondent was also recorded. On 15-6-2002 two witnesses for the respondent were recorded. On 19-7-2002 two more witnesses for respondent were recorded and the evidence of respondent was concluded. On 5-3-2003 the petitioner stated that . Further evidence in rebuttal is not to be produced. On this date again Arbitrators inquired from the parties as to whether they consent for further proceedings as 4 months had lapsed since the last consent. The petitioner gave the said consent but learned counsel for the respondent sought time to seek instruction.
' Since the evidence of the parties had been concluded the case was adjourned to 18-3-2003 with the observations that in case the respondent consents, arguments will be heard. On this date a letter was addressed by the learned counsel for the respondent to the learned Arbitrators stating that respondent does not consent to further proceedings of the arbitration. The learned Arbitrators noted the said fact and decided not to proceed till either parties give them authority to proceed or time is got extended from the Court.
2. On 27-3-2003 the petitioner filed an application under section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking extension of time for making an award by the learned Arbitrators. Learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 30-10-2003.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court has not properly exercised its discretion and has failed to take notice that no undue delay has occurred and that the arbitration proceedings had almost concluded and award was to be made after hearing the arguments. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner had been guilty of delay. According to the learned counsel in the absence of any explanation for delay the impugned order cannot be interfered with. He relies on the cases of Pakistan v. Gayer & Co., Karachi PLD 1964 (W.P.) Karachi 3 and Messrs Rafi Associates Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Food and Agriculture 1985 CLC 721.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already stated above the detail of the proceedings conducted by the learned Arbitrators. It will be seen that on the first date the Arbitrator proceeded to appoint a learned Umpire and to call upon the parties to file their respective claims. The petitioner filed the claim on 25-6-2001 after one adjournment. Similarly the respondent filed comments on 22-9-2001 after one adjournment. Issues were framed on 22-12- 2001. The prayer for amendment of issue was dealt with on 11-5-2002. The witnesses of the petitioner were recorded on 30-5-2002. The evidence of the petitioner was concluded on 14-6- 2002. Two witnesses of respondent were recorded on 15-6-2002. The evidence of the respondent was concluded on 19-7-2002. The rebuttal was closed on 5-3-2003. It will thus be seen that in the entire proceedings only 3 adjournments without any material proceedings were granted for the reasons attributable to one or the other party.
5. Now the learned trial Court has proceeded to hold that no plausible ground for said delay is there and, therefore, the application is dismissed.
6. To my mind, the said observations have been made without even examining the proceedings conducted by the learned Arbitrators. In view of the details stated above it can hardly be said that a delay has taken place. I have already noted above that evidence of the parties had been concluded and only arguments were to be heard by the learned Arbitrators and thereafter the award was to be made. In similar circumstances time was extended by the learned High Court of Sindh at Karachi in the case of Messrs Vaseem Construction Co. v. Province of Sindh and 3 others 1991 M LD 2047.
7. This civil revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the learned trial Court is set aside and extension of two months is granted to enable the learned Arbitrators to make an award.
The said period of time shall start from the date of receipt of this order to be communicated to the learned Arbitrators through Ch. Bashir Ahmad, Advocate, Ahmad Arcade, 161 Ferozepur Road, Lahore, under registered covered A.D. By the office as well as through courier service at the expenses of the petitioner to be deposited positively within 7 days. No order as to costs.