NASIRA SULTANA Versus MANZOOR AHMED RAWAL
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ This High Court Appeal is directed against an order dated 27‑1‑1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.253/84 dismissing the appellant's objections to the Award and making the Award rule of the Court, though a request was made by Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate (though incorrectly stated as Mr. Ramzan in the order).
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the present appellant filed aforsaid objections to the Award which is for a sum of Rs.8,00,000 (Rupees eight lacs) given by the Sole Arbitrator, Mr. Hafiz Abdul Baqi, Advocate. The objections were filed by Mr. Azhar Ali Siddiqui, Advocate. After that Messrs Mirza Atash Beg and Salahuddin filed Vakalatnama on 17‑11‑1985. The case had come up for hearing of the objections on a number of hearings when the case was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. However, it will suffice to refer to the Diaries dated 16‑12‑1985, 4‑11‑1986, 12‑5‑1986, 25‑11‑1986 and 25‑12‑1986. On the above first date Mr. Atash Mirza sent an application for adjournment on the ground of illness. On the aforesaid second date Mr. Salahuddin on behalf of Mr. Atash Mirza obtained adjournment, on the 3rd date Mr. Salahuddin again obtained adjournment on the ground that the case was to be argued by Mr. Atash Mirza who had obtained general adjournment, on the 4th date one Mr. Salman Ansari, Advocate file an application /undertaking on behalf of the appellant to appear and to argue the case and requested for adjournment. The case was adjourned. On the last date mentioned hereinabove, Mr. Atash Mirza requested for adjournment on the ground that Mr. Salahuddin would argue the case. Finally on 27‑1‑1987 when the order, under appeal was passed, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui had appeared, as stated hereinabove, and requested for adjournment.
3. In the appeal it has been alleged that Mr. Ramzan was not engaged by the appellant. From the file of the suit, we have discovered that in fact Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui had filed an application under Order IX, Rule 9, C.P.C. on 26‑2‑1987 alongwith a personal affidavit stating therein that he had appeared in the Court on 27‑1‑1987 and requested for adjournment which request was not acceded to. He has further deposed that he could not argue the case on account of sickness though he had prepared the case after he was engaged one day before the date of hearing. According to the appellant even Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Siddiqui was not engaged. If this is so the appellant has not shown any reason for non‑appearance by her counsel or by herself or any attorney on the above date of hearing namely, 27‑1‑1987 when the order under appeal was passed. But we have noticed that the amount of Award is quite big and it will be in the interest of justice if the appellant is given an opportunity to argue the objections on payment of heavy costs to the other side.
We would allow the appeal on payment of Rs.5,000 (Rupees: five thousand only) as costs, to the learned counsel for the respondent within a period of two weeks, failing which the order under appeal shall remain intact. Upon payment of the costs within the above period, the objections will be heard by a learned Single Judge on 20‑9‑1987. No notice will be issued by the office of the Court as the Advocates will appear on the above date without any notice. Office is directed to return the file of the suit within a day or two.
H.B.T./N‑76/K Appeal allowed.