7SKY DIGITAL MARKETING (PVT.) LIMITED vs ASR BUILDERS Ss — 2025 CLD 537 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

7SKY DIGITAL MARKETING (PVT.) LIMITED VS ASR BUILDERS Ss. 5, 11, 14, 17, 33 & 41(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115, O.II, R.6-A & O.XVI, R.5---Consolidation of petitions and issues by the Arbitrator---Application of provisions of Civil Procedure Code in arbitration proceedings---Petitioner filed a petition under S.14 read with S.17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act), which was resisted by way of filing a counter petition under Ss.5 & 11 of the Act---Issue involved in both the petitions emanated out of the same cause, so order of consolidation of petitions was passed and consolidated issues were framed---Contentions of the petitioner were that provisions of C.P.C. were not stricto sensu applicable to the Act and in terms of S. 33 of the Act the civil court was obliged to decide the dispute on the basis of affidavit---Validity---Proviso to S.33 of the Act ordains that where the court deems it just and expedient, it may set down the application for hearing and other evidence also, and it may pass such order for discovery and particulars as it may do in a suit---Section 41 of the Act provides procedure and powers of the court and in terms of S.41(a) of the Act, the provisions of "C.P.C." are applicable to all the proceedings before the court under the Act---Applicability of the provisions of "C.P.C." are not meant to hamper the arbitration proceedings but for ensuring the advancement of ends of justice---In view of joint reading of above two provisions the contention of the petitioner that under the Act, framing of issues was not permissible was highly ill-founded and misconceived---Petitioner itself moved an application under O. XIV, R. 5 of "C.P.C." for framing of additional issue as such it was estopped by words and its conduct---Since there was no specific impediment in the way of the court proceeding under the Act, so consolidation of the petitions and framing of consolidated issues, did not warrant invoking revisional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

7SKY DIGITAL MARKETING (PVT.) LIMITED vs ASR BUILDERS Ss — 2025 CLD 537 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD