PEOPLES STEEL MILLS LTD. vs ASIAN COUNSEL ENGINEER (PVT — 2026 CLD 26 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

PEOPLES STEEL MILLS LTD. VS ASIAN COUNSEL ENGINEER (PVT.) LTD. Ss.30 & 39---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Contractual dispute between two contractors---Referral of a dispute to arbitration---Filing of revision petition against appellate judgment upholding the award issued by umpire---Maintainability---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Concurrent findings---Interference, scope of---Brief facts were that the applicant company along with another entered into a contract with the respondent company for aproject of Balancing, Modernization and Rehabilitation at the applicants' factory---Disputes arose between the parties and were referred to two arbitrators who gave conflicting awards, leading to the appointment of an umpire, who issued his award and same was made rule of the court---Subsequent civil appeals and applications by the applicants were dismissed at various stages, with the final appellate judgment and decree dated 13.05.2009 upholding the umpire's award---The applicants then filed the present civil revision under S. 115, C.P.C., challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below---Legal issue requiring determination was as to "Whether a revision application under S.115, C.P.C. lay against an appellate judgment rendered under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and whether the High Court could interfere with the concurrent findings and the umpire's award within the limited supervisory jurisdiction"?---Held: a second appeal was not available against an order setting aside or refusing to set aside the award, however, the aggrieved party was entitled to file a revision application---The scope of revision application was limited and the court could only interfere if the subordinate court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity---Therefore, at the outset, it was observed that the present revision application was maintainable as under S. 39 of the Arbitration Act no second appeal lay under the scheme of the Act---The primary dispute between the parties was whether certain works undertaken by the respondent were beyond the scope of the contract---It was contended by the applicant, as articulated in the impugned judgement and not during the course of arguments before the High Court, that the extra work undertaken by the respondent was beyond the scope of the contract and the agreement ought to be void for "uncertainty"---Whereas, the award as well as the impugned judgment, placing reliance on clause 51.1 of the general conditions of contract had rendered a finding that the agreement between the parties stipulated additional work---There was no error, factual or legal, floating on the face of the record and the High Court was not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment---Further, the appellate court had correctly curtailed its jurisdiction by holding that the said court was not a court of appeal and the jurisdiction, even if liberally interpreted at the appellate stage, was of a supervisory nature---The scope of interference, in the jurisdiction of the High Court under S.115, C.P.C., against concurrent findings of the court below, was further circumscribed---Applicants failed to bring the present case within the constricted scope and therefore the present revision application was dismissed.

PEOPLES STEEL MILLS LTD. vs ASIAN COUNSEL ENGINEER (PVT — 2026 CLD 26 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD