PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs MFSSRS COMBINED TRADERS AND ANOTHER
The petitioner, the Province of Punjab, sought special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed its appeal arising from arbitration proceedings. A dispute over construction payments under an agreement was referred to arbitration, resulting in an award. The award was filed in court, and notices were issued to the parties. The notice addressed to the petitioner was returned by a departmental superintendent with an endorsement citing a lack of specific section details, and the petitioner subsequently filed time-barred objections, which were rejected by the trial court and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the service of the court notice upon the departmental superintendent constituted due service on the petitioner under the relevant procedural and administrative rules. The Supreme Court held that the superintendent was duly authorized as an agent to receive communications under the Manual of Secretariat Instructions, and the refusal to accept service amounted to an evasion of responsibility. Consequently, the petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that service upon the authorized departmental agent was valid.
- Whether a departmental superintendent is competent to receive court notices on behalf of a government department as a recognized agent?
- Does the return of a court notice by a departmental official with an evasive endorsement constitute valid service?
- Whether objections to an arbitration award filed beyond the prescribed period can be entertained without sufficient cause?
- Order III Rule 6(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order V Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEBM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14th of February, 1975, by which F. A. O. 69 of 1974 was dismissed.
2. Under an agreement the first respondent agreed to construct the National College of Arts which contained a provision for arbitration. It so happened that a dispute arose over the payment of Rs.
3. 78,000 which, by consent of the parties, was referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. S. M. Bhatti, who by his award allowed the payment of Rs. 33,149.34 to the first respon--dent. This award was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, 1st Class, Lahore, on 8th of July, 1973, and a notice was issued to the parties on 16th of July, 1973 to file their abjection by 30th of July, 1973. The notice was duly served on the second respondent who filed objections against award within the stipulated time but the notice intended for the petitioner, was returned on the 17th by the Superintendent. Receipt and issue Section of the Communication and Works Division with the following endorsement:- "Returned with the remarks that a copy of the plaint or other necessary particular to show as to which section in this Department is concerned, for it may kindly be sent so that it may be sent to the section concerned as in absence of this information in this respect no section accepts it."
4. No further notice was sent for service on the petitioner but on 7th of November, 1973, the objections to the award were filed by the petitioners beyond the time limit giving the reason for the delay that it was only on 30th of October, 1973, that the petitioner had come to know of the filing of the award in Court which explanation was not accepted and by order dated 23rd of January, 1974, the objections were reject. Against this order the aforementioned appeal was filed which too met the same fate.
5. It was urged before the High Court that the Superintendent was not competent to receive Court notice on behalf of the Secretary of the Depart--ment as he was not his agent within the meaning of Order III, rule 6(2) C. P. C. This contention was repelled as the High Court held it was not factually correct in view of para. 98 of the Manual of Secretariat instructions issued by the Government of West Pakistan, 1956. The High Court further held that the word "letters" would, within its ambit, include all communi--cations addressed to the Department and so also a Court notice which, to all intents and purposes, is a communication; and hence the petitioner was duly served. The High Court also held that even if the section was not, mentioned still the Superintendent could have found it out if be had made an inquiry in this behalf from the second respondent who belonged to this Department and on whom the notice was duly served. It was therefore, a case where the Superintendent had evaded his responsibility by endorsing on the notice that the section was not identifiable. Accordingly the refusal on his part was not explicable and it must be regarded to have been served on him as an agent of the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the Superinten--dent belonged to the 5th Provincial Buildings Division to which Depart--ment respondent No. 2 belonged and the agreement was also executed with this Department. Accordingly, we see no reason as to why the section would not be identifiable if the Superintendent had made a real effort to find it out. It was feebly argued that the Superintendent was not the agent of the petitioner within the meaning of rule 6(2) of Order III and rule 12 of Order V, C. P. C. And, therefore, the service of notice on him could not be regarded as due service on the petitioner. But this contention loses sight of para. 98 of the above- cited Manual on which the High Court has relied for holding him to be authorized to receive such a notice which, in no way, is different from the concept of the words "recognised agent" and "agent" respectively occurring in the above provisions.
7. There is therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed.