-Suit for recovery of dowry articles--05 issues were framed, evidence pro and contra was led whereafter with consent of parties, matter was referred to an Arbitrator--

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 122
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Faisal Zaman Khan, J.
MUHAMMAD HAIDER ABBAS--Petitioner
versus
Mst. ZARAB GUL etc.--Respondents
W.P. No. 17122 of 2016, heard on 13.2.2023.

Family Courts Act, 1964 (XXXV of 1964)--

----Ss. 5, 14 & 17--Arbitration Act, 1940--Statement of Arbitrator--Suit for recovery of dowry articles--05 issues were framed, evidence pro and contra was led whereafter with consent of parties, matter was referred to an Arbitrator--Arbitrator who submitted his report--thereto two additional issues were framed--Arbitrator appeared as CW-1 and was duly cross-examined--Petitioner again produced his evidence--Thereupon suit was decreed--With consent of parties, matter was referred to Arbitrator and Award submitted by Arbitrator was never objected to by petitioner--At belated stage, petitioner cannot raise an objection--The procedure as provided in Act was sufficiently followed--Petitioner has not been able to highlight any jurisdictional defect or procedural impropriety in impugned judgments and decrees.

                                                     [Para 2, 6, 7, 8 & 10] A, B, C, D & E

PLJ 2012 SC 1; 2020 CLC 549; PLD 2015 Lahore 208;
2002 SCMR 1290 ref

Sahibzada Mehboob Ali, Advocate for Petitioner.

Khawaja Qaiser Butt, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 13.2.2023.

Judgment

Through this petition, judgments and decrees dated 11.06.2016 and 05.11.2016 passed by Respondent Nos. 3 and 2, respectively, have been assailed. By virtue of the former judgment, a suit for recovery of dowry articles filed by Respondent No. 1 has been decreed and through the latter, the same has been upheld.

2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 on 24.10.2013. Due to altercation between the spouses, a suit for recovery of dowry articles was filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioner in which the latter filed his written statement. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, 05 issues were framed, evidence pro and contra was led whereafter with the consent of the parties, matter was referred to an Arbitrator and the parties agreed to the effect that they would be bound by the decision of the Arbitrator, whereupon, an award was submitted before the Court on 02.10.2014, whereupon 02 additional issues were framed; evidence pro and contra was again led, whereafter through judgment and decree dated 11.06.2016, the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed through judgment and decree dated 05.11.2016, therefore, this petition.

3. The sole argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, then proceedings of the suit should have been conducted in accordance with the procedure given in the Arbitration Act, 1940 (“Act”). Places reliance on the judgment reported as “Farzana Rasool and 3 others v. Dr. Muhammad Bashir and others” (PLJ 2012 SC 1).

4. Replying to the above, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that in furtherance of the Award, Arbitrator appeared as a witness (CW-1) and the parties, were also given opportunities to produce their evidence, hence due process has been adopted by the Courts below.

5. Arguments heard. Record perused.

6. A perusal of the available record would show that during the course of the suit, certain dowry articles were returned by the petitioner to Respondent No. 1, however, objections were raised by the latter that all the articles have not been returned, whereupon with the consent of the parties matter was referred to the Arbitrator who submitted his report on 28.09.2014, subsequent thereto two additional issues were framed, whereupon the Arbitrator (Shafqat Hussain Naqvi) appeared as CW-1 and was duly cross-examined whereafter, petitioner again produced his evidence) keeping in view the additional issues and thereupon the suit was decreed which has been upheld by Respondent No.2 in an appeal filed by the petitioner.

7. In view of the afore-referred circumstances. Since with the consent of the parties, matter was referred to the Arbitrator and Award submitted by the Arbitrator was never objected to by the petitioner, therefore, at this belated stage, he cannot raise an objection that the procedure adopted by Respondent No. 3 was not in accordance with law and the procedure devised in the Act should have been followed by Respondent No. 3.

8. Moreover, when the Arbitrator appeared as CW-1 and made his statement, which was duly cross-examined and subsequent thereto, petitioner also led his evidence, the procedure as provided in the Act was sufficiently followed, thus no objection can be raised by the petitioner in this regard.

9. As regards the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same being outcome of different facts and circumstances are not applicable to the case in hand.

10. For what has been discussed above, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight any jurisdictional defect or procedural impropriety in the impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, in view of judgments reported as Mst. Saman Naseer v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2020 CLC 549), Tasawar Hussain v. Mst. Farzana Kausar and others (PLD 2015 Lahore 208) and Muhammad Rafique v. Saima Rafique (Minor) and 2 others (2002 SCMR 1290), no ground for interference is made out, as a sequel to which, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

(K.Q.B.)          Petition dismissed