01 / ANALYSIS
Overview of the Case
The Lahore High Court examined a procedural objection in proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940: whether legal heirs of an arbitrator who died after an award had been made a rule of court had to be impleaded when the opposing party sought to set aside the ex parte order. The judgment separates succession to the parties' rights under an arbitration agreement from succession to an arbitrator's personal function and explains how the survival of a cause of action is assessed under Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure.
02 / ANALYSIS
Brief Facts
Muhammad Shafi applied under sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, to have an award dated 2 June 1993 made a rule of court. The arbitrator, Ghaus Muhammad, participated in the proceedings, and the award was made a rule of court through an ex parte order dated 29 April 2009 against Muhammad Tufail. Tufail subsequently applied under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set the order aside. During those proceedings, the parties and the arbitrator died. The legal heirs of Muhammad Shafi objected that the amended application omitted the deceased arbitrator's legal heirs. The trial court rejected that objection on 11 October 2019; the revisional court maintained that order on 12 November 2020, prompting the constitutional petition.
03 / ANALYSIS
Questions of Law
- Are the heirs of an arbitrator proper or necessary parties merely because the arbitrator participated in the award proceedings?
- Does section 6 of the Arbitration Act mean that the arbitrator's heirs inherit the arbitrator's procedural role?
04 / ANALYSIS
The Court's Answers
Are the heirs of an arbitrator proper or necessary parties merely because the arbitrator participated in the award proceedings?
Answer. No. On these facts, the arbitrator was not a party to the arbitration agreement and had no proprietary stake in the award that devolved on his heirs. His acts in rendering and filing the award were personal functions, so the heirs did not have to be joined to the proceedings challenging the ex parte order.
“the legal heirs of the deceased were not proper and necessary parties”
Does section 6 of the Arbitration Act mean that the arbitrator's heirs inherit the arbitrator's procedural role?
Answer. No. Section 6 preserves an arbitration agreement upon the death of a party to that agreement, subject to the applicable law on survivability of actions. It does not turn the arbitrator into a contracting party or transmit the arbitrator's personal duties to the arbitrator's heirs. The Court dismissed the petition on merits and for non-prosecution.
“an Arbitrator under no stretch of imagination can be treated as a party to the said agreement”
05 / ANALYSIS
Practical Relevance
In arbitration-related proceedings, counsel should identify whose substantive rights survive after a death rather than mechanically adding the heirs of every person previously arrayed. The heirs of contracting parties may need substitution where rights and liabilities survive; the deceased arbitrator's heirs will not ordinarily be necessary simply because the arbitrator signed, filed or supported the award. Any separate allegation involving the arbitrator's estate requires independent legal analysis. The case addresses proceedings under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and should not be extrapolated without checking the governing arbitration law and relevant procedural framework.