| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3753 2025 SLD 3753 = 2025 CLD 537 |
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
Civil Revision No.326 of 2024, decided on 12th September, 2024.
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
Qausain Faisal Mufti and Muhammad Saifullah Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Habib-ullah Khan and Faisal Shakrani for
Respondent No.1. Sardar Muhammad Obaid Khan for
Respondent No.2.
Civil Revision No.326 of 2024, decided on 12th September, 2024.
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
Qausain Faisal Mufti and Muhammad Saifullah Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Habib-ullah Khan and Faisal Shakrani for
Respondent No.1. Sardar Muhammad Obaid Khan for
Respondent No.2.
Messrs 7SKY DIGITAL MARKETING (PVT.) LIMITED through authorized representative---Petitioner
VERSUS
Messrs ASR BUILDERS through L.Rs. and others---Respondents
Law: Arbitration Act, 1940
Section: X,5,11,14,17,33,41(a)
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: 115,II,6A,XVI5
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)-------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.Date of hearing: 12th September, 2024.JUDGMENTMIRZA VIQAS RAUF, J.---This petition in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred to…