MUHAMMAD AKBAR vs THEPROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Through Divisional
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against an order of the Lahore High Court remanding an arbitration matter back to the trial court. The High Court had accepted the respondent's appeal and directed the lower court to decide an application under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act after affording both parties an opportunity to produce evidence and rebuttal regarding objections. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court's remand order warranted interference. Refusing leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the impugned order of remand was fair and justified. The Court further observed that no interim stay had been granted against the remand order, the petitioner had failed to instruct counsel for several years regarding the subsequent proceedings, and the matter had become merely of academic interest. Consequently, the Court found no justification for interference.
- Whether an order of remand passed by the High Court providing both parties an opportunity to lead evidence on objections under the Arbitration Act warrants interference by the Supreme Court?
- Whether a petition for leave to appeal should be dismissed as having only academic interest where the petitioner fails to pursue the case or update counsel after an unstayed remand order?
- Section 14, Arbitration Act
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-11-1976 passed- by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent herein and remanded the case to the Court below to decide the application submitted before it under section 14 of the Arbitration Act after giving the said respondent (who was the appellant before him) an opportunity to produce evidence, if any, in support of its objections and also a similar opportunity o: rebuttal to the petitioner herein (who was the respondent before him).
2. The order of the High Court impugned by this petition is only an order of remand, which appears to be a fair order, and hardly requires any interference. Moreover, it is to be observed that no interim order was granted by this Court to stay the operation of the above order of remand and the learned Advocate-on-Record is not aware as to what the outcome of the order of the High Court has been because the petitioner has not contacted him during the last several years and not given any instructions to him, in this behalf. This petition now, therefore, appears only to be of academic interest.
3. This is not a fit case for interference revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and another vs Messrs SYED BHAIS (PVT.) LTD. and another 2011 CLC 841
- Chairman WAPDA and another vs M/s. Syed Bhais (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2013 C.L.R. 750
- T.D.C.P vs MODERATE BUILDERS 2005 YLR 1269
- Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab, Ltd., Lahore through its 2005 C.L.R. 1092