GHULAM RASOOL vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over a declaration and possession suit. The core legal question is whether a decision rendered by a designated referee, who subsequently appeared in court to record a statement on oath, constitutes mere 'information' under Article 33 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, or whether it must be treated as an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, in light of previous Supreme Court jurisprudence. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the lower appellate court's decision based on the referee's findings. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the contention regarding the legal characterization of the referee's decision—specifically whether it functions as an arbitration award rather than simple evidence—requires deeper consideration. The holding establishes that the legal nature of a referee's determination, when subsequently affirmed by a statement on oath in court, is a matter of significant legal import requiring authoritative determination by the Court.
- Does a decision given by a referee, who subsequently records a statement on oath in court, constitute an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Is a referee's decision to be treated as 'information' under Article 33 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984 or as an arbitration award?
- Article 33, Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Section 14, Arbitration Act 1940
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J. - This petition has been filed for leave to appeal against judgment dated 6th December, 1999 in R.S.A. No. 15 of 1995 passed by Lahore High Court, whereby appeal instituted by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that Muhammad Sharif son of Sardar filed a suit against petitioner (defendant) Ghulam Rasool for declaration and possession. The Trial Court after conducting the suit on 27.2.1991. The respondent filed appeal in the Court of District Judge from where it was transferred to the file of Additional District Judge. During pendency of appeal parties made statement to the effect that matter be referred to Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad Cheema, District Judge, Sargodha tor decision as a Referee. Their request was accepted and the matter was referred to Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema who gave his decision and also appeared in the Court and got recorded his statement on oath. The parties accepted the same and the appeal was disposed of in terms- of decision of the Referee vide judgment dated 14th March, 1995. Petitioner Ghulam Rasool feeling aggrieved from the order of Appellate Court filed an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed vide impugned order.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner contended that the decision given by Ch. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema will not be treated as an information under Article 33 of Qanoon-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 but an arbitration award under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act in view of judgment of this Court in the case of Ghulam Farid Khan Vs. Muhammad Hanif Khan and others (1990 SC MR 763). Contention raised by learned counsel requires consideration as to whether statement made by Ch. Iftikhar Ahmed Cheema will be considered as an information under Article 33 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order or in view of his statement which he got recorded in the Court it will be treated as an arbitration award as it has been held by this Court in above judgment. Accordingly leave is granted.