Haji SHINKAI vs ABDUL SHAKOOR Ss — 2024 SCMR 344 SUPREME-COURT

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

Haji SHINKAI VS ABDUL SHAKOOR Ss. 31, 32 & 33---Suit for enforcing an award under section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940---Not maintainable---Plaintiff claimed that the dispute regarding recovery of Rs.3,800,000 from the defendants was referred to arbitration, and as a result, an award was made declaring that the defendants, for the liquidation of their liability, would give their two acres of land to the plaintiff---Plaintiff further claimed that though he was given possession of the land under the award, the mutation was not recorded in the revenue records---Based on these facts, he wanted the Court to declare him to be the owner of the land---In sum, it is clear that the plaintiff's suit was, for all intents and purposes, to enforce the award---Defendants, on the other hand, denied the arbitration agreement and maintained that the award was invalid and inoperative---Upon these pleadings, it is manifest that the instant suit raised the question as to the existence, effect or validity of the award and such a suit is expressly prohibited by section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940---If the plaintiff wanted to enforce the award, the proper procedure for him would have been first to get the award to be made a rule of the Court and then to enforce or execute the decree which might be passed on the basis of the award---Plaintiff could not resort to the procedure of filing a separate suit in disregard of the special procedure provided in the Arbitration Act, 1940---During the trial, a Commission was issued to an Advocate to inspect the suit land and to submit a report as to whether the land mentioned in the award and the land stated in the plaint were the same---On inspection, the Commission found the two lands to be different---None of the parties challenged the report of the Local Commission---In the context of the report of the Local Commission, the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff regarding the handing over of the possession of the defendants' land became highly doubtful---Plaintiff should have produced a relevant revenue record or a revenue officer to establish that the defendants voluntarily acting upon the award had handed over the possession of their land to him, but he did not do so---Appeal filed by plaintiff was dismissed.

Haji SHINKAI vs ABDUL SHAKOOR Ss — 2024 SCMR 344 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 SCMR