GHULAM NABI vs BIBI TAHIRA Ss — 2025 CLC 2053 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.

GHULAM NABI VS BIBI TAHIRA Ss. 15, 16, 17,30, 32 & 33---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Enforcing award through a civil suit---Scope and effect---award not having been accepted / acted upon by the parties---Effect---Suit for declaration was instituted to enforce the arbitration award and, on the strength of award, relief was sought for declaration of ownership and transfer of mutation in the names of plaintiff---Plea of the petitioners was that the award was partly acted upon to the extent of handing over possession of the land to the petitioners---Relief sought was concurrently denied---Validity---The arbitration act, 1940 ('the act 1940'), prescribes a statutory mode to give a legal effect to an award, that is, S. 17 of the act, 1940---Unless an award is made rule of the court, the same would not create rights and liabilities in respect of its subject matter---Petitioners /plaintiffs had not applied to make the award as rule of the court; thus, the award could not have been enforced through the mode outside the provisions of the act, 1940---Section 32 of the act, 1940 bars a suit instituted for a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an award nor shall in such suit, any such award be set-aside, amended, modified or in any way affected otherwise then as provided by Ss. 15, 16, 17,30 and 33 of the act, 1940 which sections relate to modification and or amendment of an award, making the award as rule of the court and setting aside of it---an award cannot be enforced through a civil suit; thus, petitioners' suit was barred by S. 32 of the act, 1940---In the present case, though the petitioners / plaintiffs pleaded that the award was partly acted upon to the extent of handing over possession of the land to them, however, they failed to prove the same through evidence as three of their witnesses, separately in their respective cross-examination, admitted many facts correct like both lands were in the possession of respondent; that both pieces of lands were waste lands and both parties had not cultivated the lands nor raised construction thereupon; and that petitioners had not an orchard nor any construction on the land---Thus, petitioners / plaintiffs failed to establish that the award was partly acted upon by handing over possession of the land---as the award had not been made rule of the court and it was not partly acted upon as pleaded by the petitioners, thus, petitioners' suit was not maintainable under S. 32 of the act, 1940---award was not accepted nor acted upon, partly or wholly, by the parties thereto---Thus, suit for claiming ownership of the land on the strength of the award was not competent under S. 32 of the act, 1940---Consequently, the impugned concurrent judgments did not suffer from any error of law of S. 32 of the act, 1940 and S. 42 of the Specific Relief act, 1877---No illegality or infirmity had been noticed in concurrent judgments calling for any interference by the High Court in its limited revisional jurisdiction---Civil revision, filed by plaintiffs, was dismissed, in circumstances.

GHULAM NABI vs BIBI TAHIRA Ss — 2025 CLC 2053 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC