Messrs KUWAIT AIRWAYS CORPORATION vs Messrs JEHANGIR TRAVEL CORPORATION RAWALPINDI
This matter originated from an application filed before a Civil Judge to initiate arbitration proceedings under the Arbitration Act, alongside a request for an interim injunction to restrain the realization of a bank guarantee. The trial court refused the injunction. The District Judge, treating the appeal as a revision, granted the injunction. The High Court subsequently entertained and dismissed a revision against the District Judge's order. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the competency of the initial appeal. The Court held that the order passed by the Civil Judge was not appealable under the Arbitration Act, making the District Judge's treatment of the matter as a revision correct. However, the Court further held that the second revision filed before the High Court was barred under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second revision, rendering its order void. The Supreme Court recalled the leave previously granted and dismissed the petition as incompetent, establishing that a second revision is barred by statute.
- Is an order refusing an interim injunction in arbitration proceedings appealable under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does a second revision lie against an order passed by a District Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction?
- Is a High Court order passed without jurisdiction subject to a petition for leave to appeal?
- Section 20, Arbitration Act 1940
- Order XXXIX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXXIX Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 38, Arbitration Act 1940
- Section 115(4), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The respondent, herein, moved an application before the Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, for the filing of the arbitration agreement in terms of the arbitration clause under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
2. In which it was prayed that pending the settlement of disputes ~ the appellant be restrained from realising any amount under the terms of the bank guarantee furnished by the United Bank Limited in its favour. The trial Court refused the prayer and dismissed the application by order, dated 31st of July, 1972.
3. Against this order the respondent went in appeal before the District Judge and as no such appeal was competent the District Judge treated the appeal as a revision and set aside the order of the Civil Judge and granted the interim injunction as prayed by the respondent by order, dated 22nd of September, 1972. The appellant preferred a revision against this order before the High Court which was dismissed and leave was granted by this Court to consider whether an appeal lay against the order passed by the Civil Judge.
4. Section 38 of the Arbitration Act enumerates the orders against which an appeal can be filed and the order in question was not one of those orders. Accordingly, the District Judge rightly treated it as a revision and disposed it of as such.
5. The second revision filed in the High Court against the order of the District Judge, dated 22nd of September, 1972, was barred under subsection (4) of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the High Court wrongly entertained and disposed it of. Accordingly, the order passed by the High Court was without jurisdiction and hence no petition for leave lay against that order.
6. In this view of the matter, we would recall the order granting leave and dismiss the petition as being incompetent, but with no order as to costs.