MUHAMMAD JAFFAR Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, HASILPUR
This revision petition has sought to set aside the judgment dated 15‑5‑1978 pronounced by the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur who had directed that the disputed matter may be referred to arbitration. The learned lower Court was issued a direction that it should send the record of this case to the arbitrator and take further proceedings on the receipt of the award.
2. The relevant facts of this case in brief are that the petitioner was a contractor who had purchased the right to collect octroi for the year 1972‑73. He paid the lease money etc., but in accordance with notice dated 28‑9‑1977 the respondent put forth a demand of Rs.6,335.80. The petitioner brought a suit on 17‑10‑1977 for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from demanding the said amount as it had become time‑barred and he was not liable to pay any amount.
3. The respondent before filing the written statement, presented an application to the learned trial Court that on account of the existence of clause 17 of the original contract, the matter may be referred to the Controlling authority, the arbitrator. The learned trial Court dismissed the said petition. In appeal, the learned District Judge accepted the petition of the respondent and made a direction as stated supra.
4. With reference to section 34 of the Arbitration Act, it has been contended that the Court could. only stay the proceedings and could not impart any direction that the file be sent to the arbitrator and the award be received. section 34 of the Arbitration Act reads as under:‑
"Where any party to an arbitration agreement or any person claiming under him commences any legal proceedings against any other party to the agreement or any person claiming under him in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to such legal proceedings may, at any time before fling a written statement or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the judicial authority before which the proceedings are pending to stay the proceedings; and if satisfied that there is no sufficient reason why the matter should not be referred in accordance with the arbitration agreement and that the applicant was, at the time when the proceedings were commenced and still remains, ready and willing to do all things necessary to the proper conduct of the arbitration; such authority may make an order staying the proceedings."
5. According to the phraseology of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, the learned trial Court was to only stay the proceedings till the parties got the matter arbitrated. No such direction regarding the sending of the record and the receipt of the award could be made by the learned District Judge. M/s.Qasim & Co. v. Sh.Azimuddin P L D 1962 Lah.95 and Pakistan International Airlines p, Corporation v. M/s. Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners P L D 1981 S C 553 have been ‑ referred to in this context. The learned District Judge, Bahawalur has committed irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction by transgressing his powers which have been limited a/s 34 of the Arbitration Act. In this manner, the order of the learned District Judge is modified to the extent that the proceedings before the learned lower Court shall only be stayed till the parties approach the arbitrator to get an award. I make no order as to costs.
MA.K./3362/L Order accordingly. .