SHAH MUHAMMAD vs Dr — 2024 CLD 369 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SHAH MUHAMMAD VS Dr. ABDULLAH KHAN S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court had a narrow and limited jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings arrived by the Courts below while exercising power under S. 115, C.P.C.---Interference in revisional jurisdiction could be made only in the cases in which order or judgment rendered by the subordinate Courts were found to be perverse or suffering from jurisdictional error or defect of mis-reading or non-reading of evidence and conclusion---Petition was dismissed accordingly. Citation Name: 2024 CLD 369 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case SHAH MUHAMMAD VS Dr. ABDULLAH KHAN Ss. 14, 17 & 26-a---Making award rule of Court---Principles---Filing of objections---Petitioners were aggrieved of making award as rule of Court by Trial Court as well as appellate Court---Plea raised by petitioners was that Court had to state the reasons for making the award as rule of Court but failed to do so and the suit was time barred; and that Courts below were bound to dismiss the suit---Validity---Record showed that the respondent was appointed sole arbitrator by consent of the parties---Parties appeared before the arbitrator, took part in arbitration proceedings without any objection---Sole arbitrator prepared award signed by the parties without any protest---If a party had appeared before the proceeding of arbitrator without any protest, and the award was signed then subsequently it could not question the validity of award on the basis that award was made beyond statutory period of limitation---Procedure in filing award was a ministerial act---Provision of arbitration was a selection by parties for an early/expeditious solution of their dispute and dispensing with technicalities of law---Sanctity was attached to the award which could not be brushed aside until and unless it was shown that the arbitrator or umpire had mis-conducted himself or that award had been improperly procured or was otherwise invalid in terms of S. 30 of the arbitration act, 1940---While making an award the rule of Court, the Court had to examine the validity of award in a limited scope---Petition was dismissed accordingly.

SHAH MUHAMMAD vs Dr — 2024 CLD 369 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD