S.M. IQBAL vs S.M. AZIM and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal of the petitioner's civil revision by the High Court, which arose from the dismissal of an appeal as time-barred in an arbitration matter. The trial court had made an award a rule of the court on 31-1-1978, and the petitioner's appeal was filed on 9-7-1978 along with an application for condonation of delay filed years later. The core legal question was whether an allegedly belated award constitutes a nullity that can override the bar of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the circumstances of the case did not justify treating the award as a nullity, nor could the belated appeal be entertained without valid grounds for condonation of delay. The Court established that an award is not rendered a nullity merely due to alleged delay in its making where extension of time and proper circumstances are not challenged, and refused leave to appeal.
- Whether an arbitration award made after the prescribed time is a nullity?
- Can a time-barred appeal against an arbitration award be entertained without sufficient grounds for condonation of delay?
- Does the making of an award a rule of the court warrant interference by the Supreme Court when the lower courts dismissed the appeal on limitation?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioner's Civil Revision. It had arisen out of the dismissal by the District Court of the petitioner's appeal in arbitration matter, as time-barred.
2. ' The trial Court made an award a rule of the Court on 31-1-1978. The petitioner's appeal filed on 9- 7-1978 being time-barred, his application for condonation of delay filed many years later, was dismissed, and so was his appeal dismissed as time-barred.
3. ' Learned counsel contended that the award having been made after the prescribed time, was a nullity. Therefore, the appeal should despite the bar of limitation have been treated as competent.
4. We do not agree with him. Firstly, the learned counsel has not commented on the point regarding the extension of time for the award; and secondly, it was not such a case in which even if the award would have been found defective, it could have been treated as a nullity. The circumstances of the case did not justify it. Regarding the appeal being badly barred by time, the learned counsel remained unable to justify interference by this Court with the treatment of this question by the High Court in that behalf. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.