Law:

Section:

The revision petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Court dated 3-5-1975, disallowing before. cross-examination the so-called "fishing" of material from the record of the arbitration proceedings.   It is stated that a contract was placed on the petitioner-Company by the Director of Industries and Commerce (Supply Wing) Government of the Punjab, Lahore, for the supply of 14 Kingcold air-conditioners for installation in the passenger buses of the Punjab Road Transport Board. A letter of credit was opened in favour of Messrs Antar Industries Inc., New York, but when they showed some reluctance to proceed with the shipment of the goods on schedule, the letter of credit was transferred with the concurrence of the respondents to Messrs Climatic Air, Los Angels, the principals of Messrs Freezit Ltd., Lahore. The air-conditioners could not be installed for the reason that they were not of the required specification. The petitioner-Company was asked to refund the amount of foreign exchange involv ed in the establishment of the letter of credit and insurance charges and a sum of Rs.44,653 in Pakistan currency was required to be refunded. On this dispute. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed, the Deputy Director (Development) was appointed an arbitrator, who gave an award against the petitioner-Company and to get the award set aside, an application under section 30 ` 33 of the Arbitration Act was filed in the Civil Court by the petitioners company on 10-11-1968.   In support of their application, the petitioner-Company examined three witnesses and closed their case. In rebuttal, Mr. Mansoor Ahmed. Arbitrator was produced. During cross-examination, as is alleged by the petitioner, an application was made by the petitioner Company for summoning of the file from the office of the Director of Industries to facilitate the witness to answer questions put to him in cross-examination. The request was allowed but for one reason or the other the cross-examination could no start. Ultimately, on 3-5-1975, the witness appeared in Court and the summoned file was also available. It is stated that before the learned counsel of the petitioner could resume…