LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has held that the decree based upon statement of a mediator could not be challenged by any party in an appeal unless the same was the result of fraud or misrepresentation as such statement has a binding effect on the parties.
The court observed that mediation is a modern, flexible and globally recognised method of dispute resolution, particularly in commercial and corporate matters, aimed at saving time, cost and judicial resources while promoting a culture of amicable settlement.
The court passed this order in a petition of Muhammad Razzaq challenging the decision of an appellant court remanding a property dispute to trial court for deciding afresh which passed its verdict in terms of the referee’s decision.
The court said that the parties, with their free consent and mutual understanding, consciously elected to resolve their dispute through the appointment of a referee.
Having availed themselves of such a mode of adjudication, was bound by the outcome thereof, subject only to its verification, which in the present case was duly carried out by the referee himself before the trial court, the court added.
The court said the verification by the referee himself lent full credence to the decision, thereby elevating it to an unquestionable and reliable determination of the dispute between the parties.
The court said, the appellate court, instead of giving due weight to the consensual mechanism adopted by the parties and the verified verdict of the referee, proceeded to remand the matter to the trial court for recording of evidence and fresh adjudication on grounds which are, neither legally sustainable nor factually justified.
The court said it is well settled that minor inaccuracies or clerical errors do not vitiate a judgment or decision when the substance of the matter remains clear and unambiguous.
The court said any attempt to wriggle out of the agreed course, after having derived or sought to derive benefit there from, is legally untenable and liable to be discouraged. In such a state of affairs, even challenge to the decree by preferring an appeal was not tenable, the court added.
The court; therefore, declared the impugned order of the appellant court as arbitrary and capricious and observed that the trial court was fully justified in placing reliance upon the referee’s decision.
The court restored the decision of the trial court and remarked that the impugned judgment, being a classic instance of such perversity and flawed reasoning, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments