| Case ID |
512773c8-a06a-4736-ad2f-6026a2d9cfb6 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revisions Nos. 341-D and 342-D of 1990/BWP |
| Decision Date |
Jan 08, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 08, 2001 |
| Decision |
The case revolves around the appointment of a referee to resolve a monetary dispute of Rs.21,000 between the petitioners and the respondent, wherein the parties agreed to the referee's decision being final. The trial court referred the matter to Ch. Habib Ullah based on the parties' consent, leading to a decision in favor of the respondent. The petitioners later contested this, arguing that the referee was akin to an arbitrator and that the proper legal procedures were not followed. However, the court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that the parties willingly chose this resolution method without any legal irregularities. The court noted that the requirement for a written application for arbitration as per Section 21 of the Arbitration Act was not fulfilled, but the parties' agreement to refer the matter to the referee negated the need for such formality. The final ruling dismissed the petitioners' appeals and upheld the referee's decision, emphasizing the voluntary nature of the agreement between the parties. |
| Summary |
This case addresses the legal intricacies surrounding arbitration and the appointment of a referee in civil disputes. The Lahore High Court examined the validity of a referee's decision made in the context of a civil suit for recovery of Rs.21,000. The parties involved had consented to refer their dispute to a named referee, Ch. Habib Ullah, whose decision was deemed final. The petitioners contested the legitimacy of the referee's appointment, asserting that it should have adhered to the formalities of arbitration as outlined in the Arbitration Act (1940), specifically Section 21, which obligates a written application for arbitration. The court clarified that while the referee's role is to decide based on personal knowledge, obtaining supplementary information does not inherently invalidate the decision. The court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no errors in the process or the referee's actions, thus affirming the principles of voluntary dispute resolution and the autonomy of parties in civil litigation. The ruling reinforces the importance of clear agreements in legal proceedings and the recognition of informal dispute resolution methods in the context of established legal frameworks. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J
|
| Lawyers |
|
| Petitioners |
others,
Haji ANWAR ALI
|
| Respondents |
BASHIR AHMAD
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 2502,
2002 CLC 421
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Arif and others v. Farrukh Hafeez KLR 2000 Civil Cases 387,
Naveed Aziz and another v. Rauf Ali Syed 1996 CLC 1932,
Mahabit v. Manohar Singh AIR 1924 All. 540,
Waliullah v. Bhaggan AIR 1925 Oudh 269,
Gudipoodi Subbayya and another v. Katapalli Seshayya and others AIR 1928 Mad. 48(2),
Messrs S.M. Qasim & Co. v. Messrs Sh. Azimuddin PLD 1962 (W.P.). Lah. 95,
Municipal Committee, Fazilka v. Fazilka Electric Supply Co. Ltd. AIR 1947 Lah. 309,
A.B. Mitchell v. J.C. Dutt AIR 1928 Cal. 209,
Dwarkanath Roy and others v. Fanindra Nath Roy and other, AIR 1919 Cal. 232,
Sher Zaman Khan v. Noor Zaman Khan and another PLD 1977 Lah. 672,
Muhammad Ashraf v. Abdur Rehman 1993 CLC 1875
|
| Laws Involved |
Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Arbitration Act (X of 1940)
|
| Sections |
Art. 33,
S.21
|