PUNJAB PROVINCE and another vs Mian FAQIR SAIN
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision, which had challenged an order appointing a sole arbitrator by mutual consent. The core legal question was whether the appointment of the arbitrator by the Senior Civil Judge was made with the valid consent of the petitioner Punjab Province. The Supreme Court held that the question of consent is a question of fact, and where an affidavit challenging the consent fails to allege mala fides against the judge who recorded the consent, no interference is warranted. The court dismissed the petition, establishing that concurrent factual findings regarding consent given before a lower court through counsel or representatives will not be disturbed by the apex court in the absence of substantiated allegations of mala fides.
- Whether an order appointing an arbitrator by consent can be challenged in civil revision without alleging mala fides against the judge who recorded the consent?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of consent between parties to an arbitration agreement?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7th November, 1982 whereby the civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. ' The background is that a dispute ensued between the petitioner Punjab Province and the respondent Mian Faqir Sain, Government contractor, about some work done which was to be decided through arbitration. Every time the arbitrator was proposed by the respondent-contractor, but the petitioner would not accept him. It took considerable time until the arbitration application was disposed of on mutual agreement of the parties to appoint Mr. Justice (Retired) Zakiuddin Pal to act as sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute. This order was passed by the Senior Civil Judge with the consent of the parties. Nevertheless the petitioner challenged the same by way of civil revision which was heard by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore who dismissed the same as stated above. Hence the present petition.
3. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that it was argued before the learned Single Judge that no consent was given on the part of the petitioner and in support of this an affidavit of Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Chuhan, Government pleader was placed on the record. However, the learned Judge was not satisfied with the contents of the affidavit for the reason that no mala fides had been alleged expressly or impliedly against the Senior Civil Judge who passed the impugned order with the consent of the parties. This question of fact has been correctly decided as against the petitioner and in our view no interference is called for by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed.