IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.

R.A. No._____________/2001

Muhammad Farooq S/o Muhammad Siddique, caste Sheikh, R/o

House No. 2354, Ward No. 10, Street No. 1, Muhammadi Mohallah,
Multan city.
Applicant/Appellant
VERSUS
1. Irfan Ahmad S/o Muhammad Zaki, caste Mughal, R/o Shop No.
13, property No. 2577, Ward No. 10, Hussain Agahi Road,
Multan.
2. Muhammad Latif S/o Muhammad Izhar, caste Rajpoot, R/o
Mohallah Tibbi Sher Khan, Ghanta Ghar, O/s Lohari Gate,
Multan.
Respondents

Review Application U/s-114 of C.P.C.

against the order dated 22.5.2001 passed
by the learned Division Bench (Mr.
Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Mr.
Justice Muhammad Farrukh Mehmood)
by which the learned bench has
dismissed the appeal of the applicant.

CLAIM IN REVIEW: -
To set aside the order dated 22.5.2001 by
reviewing on the ground that no
limitation is provided for the appeal in
the Arbitration Act.

Respectfully Sheweth: -
1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been
given for the purpose of their summons and citations.
2. That the respondent No. 1 filed an application U/s 14/17
Arbitration Act, 1940 against the respondent No. 2 and applicant
on 16.2.1995 stating thereby that an arbitration agreement was
executed on 5.5.1993 between the applicant and respondent No.
1. Then according to the agreement, Muhammad Bakhsh was
appointed arbitrator by applicant and Muhammad Azam by the
respondent No. 1. It was further agreed by the parties that if both
the arbitrators could not succeed to resolve the controversy then
the respondent No. 2 would decide the dispute between the
parties.

3. That both the arbitrators failed to decide the dispute between the
parties, and then respondent No. 2 decide the dispute and
announced award dated 18.12.1993. The respondent No. 1
contended that the respondent No. 2 refused to bring the Award
and proceedings before the court to make the same rule of court.
On the said cause of action, the respondent No. 1 filed the
application before the Trial Court.

4. That the application was resisted on behalf of applicant/appellant

by filing objections U/s 30/33 Arbitration Act, 1940, on
30.4.1995. The reply of these objections was filed by respondent
No. 1 on 15.10.1995. However, this application was not contested
on behalf of respondent No. 2 vide reply dated 19.5.95.

5. That both the parties adduced their oral and documentary

evidence and the learned Trial Court passed order dated 29.7.98
and announced the award as rule of court. Copy of order is
Annex “A”.

6. That the applicant filed an appeal before the District Judge,

which was entrusted for further disposal to the court of Ch.
Mushtaq Ahmad the learned A.D.J. Multan who, vide order dated
1.6.2000, returned the appeal to file the same before the proper
forum on the pecuniary jurisdiction. So, the appeal is preferred
before the Hon’ble Court. Copy of order is Annex “B”).
7. That on 29.3.2001, at the time of initial arguments, the learned
counsel for the appellant/applicant pointed out that there is no
limitation for the filing of appeal prescribed in the Arbitration
Act. Taking notice of this view, the learned appellate court was
pleased to issue a pre-admission notice to the opposite party. The
case was again listed for 7.5.2001 on this date the learned counsel
for respondent No. 1 was present while respondent No. 2 neither
appeared before the court in person nor any counsel entered
appearance on his behalf. However, the case was adjourned for a
fortnight.

8. That the case was listed on 22.5.2001 on which the case was
decided against the appellant/applicant, ex-parte as well as on the
limitation point. Copy of order is Annex “C”.

9. That the order dated 22.5.2001 is liable to be reviewed inter alia

on the following: -

GROUNDS

a) That the counsel for the applicant, is a resident of

surrounding of Multan city. There was a storm by the
night falling between 21/22.5.2001. There were so
many happenings as a result of that storm, the counsel
remained busy to look after the structures of the
buildings and crops damaged due to the said storm.
However, the applicant was intimated to attend the
court on 22.5.2001.

b) That initially, the case was fixed for hearing before the
learned Division Bench comprising of lordships Mr.
Jusitce Zahid Hussain and Mr. Justice Nazir Ahmad
Siddiqui on 29.3.2001 and then on 7.5.2001, again
before the learned Division Bench comprising the
lordships Mr. Justice Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui and Mr.
Justice M. Khalid Alvi, also. So, the applicant in the
same presumption remained present out of the court of
Mr. Justice Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui and Mr. Justice M.
 Khalid Alvi till the arising of Hon’ble court but there
was no call for the titled case. This position was
explained to the counsel on 23.5.2001. When the
counsel explored the matter, then it came to the
knowledge that the case was fixed before this Hon’ble
Division Bench and the impugned order was passed.

c) That the citations quoted in the impugned order are not

applicable due to the peculiar features of the case that
no limitation is provided in the statue for the filing of
appeals. On this sole ground the impugned order can be
reviewed.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is

respectfully prayed that the impugned order dated
22.5.2001 may please be reviewed by setting aside the
impugned order and the R.F.A. No. 163/2000 my please
be admitted for regular hearing.
Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems
fit, may please be extended in the favour of appellant to
meet the ends of justice.
Humble Appellant,

Dated: ___________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: -
Certified as per instructions of the client,
that this is the first revision application on
the subject matter. No such application has
earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court.
Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 R.A. No._____________/2001

Muhammad Farooq Vs. Irfan Ahmad etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Farooq S/o Muhammad Siddique, caste
Sheikh, R/o House No. 2354, Ward No. 10, Street No. 1,
Muhammadi Mohallah, Multan city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are
true & correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.

DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 R.A. No._____________/2001

Muhammad Farooq Vs. Irfan Ahmad etc.

INDEX

S. No. DETAIL OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES

1 Urgent Form.
2 Review Application.
3 Affidavit
4 Copy of order dated 29.7.98. A
5 Copy of order. B
6 Copy of order dated 22.5.2001. C
7 Dispensation Application.
8 Affidavit.
9 Vakalatnama.

Applicant,
Dated: ____________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001
In
R.A. No._____________/2001

Muhammad Farooq Vs. Irfan Ahmad etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE

FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES.
=========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:-
That certified copies of Annexures “A to C” are not
available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the
same have been annexed with the petition, which are true
copies of original documents.

It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies
of documents.
APPLICANT

Dated: __________

Through: -
Hammad Afzal Bajwa,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20959
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court,
28-District Courts, Multan.
C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH,

MULTAN.
 In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001
In
R.A. No._____________/2001

Muhammad Farooq Vs. Irfan Ahmad etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION.

AFFIDAVIT of: -
Muhammad Farooq S/o Muhammad Siddique, caste
Sheikh, R/o House No. 2354, Ward No. 10, Street No. 1,
Muhammadi Mohallah, Multan city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby

solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of
the above-mentioned application are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
and nothing has been kept concealed thereto.

DEPONENT

Verification: -
Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day
of June 2001 that the c
ontents of this affidavit are true & correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

DEPONENT