PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus SHEIKH MIR HASSAN-HAJI MARDAN KHAN

A dispute between the parties arose in regard to the work relating to the Greater Rawalpindi Water Supply Scheme which was referred by them for arbitration to Mr. Shafique Ahmad Khan, Superintending Engineer, Public Health, Engineering Circle, Lyallpur. He gave an award on 7‑9‑1971 which was filed in Court on an application made by the appellant. Objections were filed by the appellant against the said award. The learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, rejected the objections and as a consequence made the award a rule of the Court vide judgment dated 1‑6‑1976. This first appeal has been filed against the said order. I have perused the record and have heard the arguments.

2. The appellant has taken an objection that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings. Their main plea is that full opportunity of hearing was not afforded to them by the Arbitrator. They contend that the Arbitrator heard the case at Rawalpindi on 27‑8-1971 and then adjourned it for hearing at Faisalabad but instead of fixing it for hearing at that place he made and published the award on 7‑9‑1971. The evidence produced by the appellant in itself proves that it was not so and that the Arbitrator had neither misconducted himself nor the proceedings. Sh. Aftab Ahmad, XEN, has appeared as P.W.1 and has stated that the parties had nominate the said Arbitrator as a sole Arbitrator and he (P.W.1) conducted the proceedings before him on behalf of the appellant. He has stated that the Arbitrator heard them properly and inspected the spot and then gave the award. Similarly, Malik Allah Bakhsh, S.D.O. has appeared as PW.2 and has supported the case of the respondent instead of supporting the case of the appellant. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 suffices to prove that the Arbitrator heard the case properly, gave the parties full opportunity to produce evidence and inspected the spot. It is also proved that he never adjourned the case for hearing at Faisalabad. No evidence in rebuttal was required to be produced as there was nothing to be rebutted. However, the respondents produced the said Arbitrator as R.W.1. His evidence was supported by the statements of Ahmad Din Siddiqui, Manager and Gul Hussain Sheikh R.W.3, a partner of the respondent firm. The Arbitrator made it clear that the parties produced their full evidence before him and closed the same and that he inspected the spot in their presence and then went away to Faisalabad to prepare the award. He has stated that the parties were not required to come to Faisalabad as they had nothing to do with the preparation of the award. In these circumstances it is clearly proved that the Arbitrator made the award after conducting the proceedings in a proper and just manner. An Arbitrator is a nominee of the parties and he is a sole Judge of the questions referred to him and the questions which arise during the proceedings. He is a Judge of the questions of fact as also of questions of law. This view is supported by many rulings the latest being Messrs National Construction Co. v. West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority P L D 1987 SC 461. The findings of the learned trial Court on all the issues are therefore correct and are confirmed.

3. The appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs throughout.

A . A . /P‑40/ L Appeal dismissed.