LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MESSRS KHALID JAVED & Co.

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the order dated 22nd January, 1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing the First Appeal (F. A. O. 12/83) preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree of a learned Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby he ordered that the award of the Arbitrators be made the rule of the Court.

2. The dispute arising out of a contract given by the petitioner to the respondent for widening of the Lahore Cantonment Approach Road was referred to arbitration, under the Clauses of the Agreement and two Arbitrators, both of whom were the nominees of the petitioner, were appointed by a Civil Judge of Lahore to arbitrate in the matter. The Arbitrators made an award, which was filed before the Court on 18th October, 1981, in which the petitioner was held liable to pay Rs.

3. 5,44,156.52 to the respondent.

4. Objections were preferred to this award by the petitioner but the learned Civil Judge in a detailed judgment, wherein the merits of the objections were properly discussed, rejected all the objections raised to the Award and made it the rule-of the Court. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree before the Lahore High Court, which was heard by a learned Single Judge thereof. The learned Judge found no merit in the appeal and ,d4smissed it in limine. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

5. Mohammad Ahmad Hasan Khan attempted to support this petition by raising some hyper- technical pleas. However, considering the fact that both the Arbitrators were nominees of the petitioner ; that a fair and proper opportunity was given by them to both the parties to establish their respective cases and the award shows that every item of the claim made by the respondent has been adequately considered and decided on its merits with the result that while some have been allowed, others modified, there are some others which have been rejected completely and to top it all no "misconduct", as the said term is understood in law, has been established against them, the learned trial Court was, therefore, fully justified in making the award the rule of the Court and the High Court acted properly in dismissing summarily the appeal preferred against the said determination. Accordingly, there is absolutely no ground for inter--ference with the judgment of the High Court. This petition must fail and is rejected hereby and the interim order dated 9th February, 1983 staying the payment of the decretal amount stands vacated.