Hakim NOOR MUHAMMAD vs BASHIR AHMAD
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the Civil Court, District Judge, and High Court, which upheld an arbitration award regarding the ownership of a house in Sahiwal. The core legal questions were whether an arbitration award signed by only four out of six appointed arbitrators is valid, and whether an arbitration award concerning immovable property requires registration under the Registration Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts committed no legal infirmity. Regarding the validity of the award, the Court accepted the trial court's finding that the award was unanimous, with two arbitrators unable to sign due to illness. Regarding registration, the Court affirmed the rejection of the objection, relying on established precedent that such awards do not necessarily require registration. The key principle laid down is that an arbitration award, even if not signed by all appointed arbitrators, may be upheld if it is proven to be unanimous and the absence of signatures is satisfactorily explained, and that arbitration awards regarding immovable property are not automatically invalid for lack of registration.
- Is an arbitration award invalid if it is not signed by all members of the appointed panel of arbitrators?
- Does an arbitration award dealing with immovable property require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
- Registration Act 1908
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--There was a dispute between the parties in respect of a house situate in Farid Town, Sahiwal. On 17-5-73, they executed an agreement whereby they referred the dispute to a panel of six arbitrators. The arbitrators gave the award on 12-9-73, declaring that the house belonged to the parties in equal shares. On 15-11-1973, the respondent moved an application before the Civil Court at Sahiwal for making the award the rule of the Court. The petitioner raised a number of objections. After prolonged proceedings the Civil Judge by an order dated 12-2-84 rejected the objections and made the award rule of the Court. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. He then took a revision to the High Court but that too met with the same fate. He now seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel but we are not persuaded that the decision of the learned Civil Judge, affirmed by the District Judge, in rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners suffers from any legal infirmity. One of the objections raised by the petitioner was that although a panel of six arbitrators had been appointed, yet only four had signed the award. In this context, it may be mentioned that there was evidence before the trial Court that the award was a unanimous one but two of the arbitrators could not sign it on account of illness. It is also contended that as the award dealt with immovable property, it should have been got registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. This objection was rejected by the trial Court on the authority of the decision of the West Pakistan High Court in Kh.Muhammad Yousuf v. Kh. Abdur Rashid PLD 1967 Kar.
508.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case where leave should be granted to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.