Find a Lawyer

JAMIA KHAIR UL MADAR1S, AURANGZEB ROAD, MULTAN versus MANZAR

Request for purchase and order by O Hill RO4 & OI, ROO Sections 119 & 12 (2) igh High Court (Lahore), Vol 1, CHAP 16, Part A & Vol V, CHAP 6, Part B Client. Appointment of requester - Requirements op Power Opt Attorney cess Required - Application was made for the application of the party without any authorization or authorization which was accepted - Justification - The Council has in its favor Have the power to legally enforce a law so that it can represent any litigation before a legal forum. - Authorized person cannot address court - No lawyer can represent a client or plaintiff unless he or she is exempt from the lawyer unless he / she is present at the time of filing the application. Option is offered. In the present case with regard to a party ?? the process could not be endorsed or allowed to be considered merely that it was an irregular and therapeutic treatment. the Applicant of any kind was not requested by the applicant. Appointment of the plead applicant should be in writing, and these individuals (in person), in person, before the court or in person in court or by a special counsel or general attorney for the betterment of their lawyer's previous performance. (S) must be signed by the applicant and such device must be before the court - when the applicant who had filed the application under Rule 0 1, R 10, did not write to the CPC It was not authorized by the instrument of power, nor did it furnish any memorandum with the offer. Power of Attorney

PLD 2017 Lahore 219

Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J

JAMIA KHAIR UL MADAR1S, AURANGZEB ROAD, MULTAN—Petitioner

versus

MANZAR and 5 others—Respondents

Writ Petition No.4299 of 2016, decided on 9th August, 2016.

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

- O. Hly R. 4 & O.I, RAO & Ss. 119 & 12(2)—High Court (Lahore) Buies and Order, Vol. I, Chap. 16, Part A and Vol. V, Chap. 6, Part B Appointment of pleader by client—Requirements—Power-op attorney—Necessity—Application for impleadment of a party was filed without any power-of-attorney or authorization which was accepted— Validity—Counsel should have a duly executed power of attorney in his favour so as to represent any litigant before any legal forum— aauthorized person could not address a court—No counsel could represent a client or litigant unless and until he was authorized by execution of power-of-attorney—Neither memorandum of appearance nor power-of-attorney was submitted at the time of filing of application °r impleadment of a party in the present case—Such practice could not be endorsed or permitted to carry the day merely on the assumption and presumption that it was an irregularity and curable—No exertion had been made by the applicant to file power-of-attorney or to appear before the court in person or through a special attorney or general attorney for making his better statement in order to rectify the acts done by his counsel retrospectively—Appointment of pleader should be in writing and duly signed by persons(s) who appointed the pleader and such instrument must be before the court—When pleader who filed an application under 0.1, R.10, C.P.C. was neither authorized through a written instrument i.e. power-of-attorney nor he filed any memorandum of appearance with the undertaking of production of power-of-attorney} said application was not entertainable and was incompetent to proceed on—Impugned orders had been passed beyond jurisdiction which could not be allowed to remain in field—Revisional Court had committed illegality by not applying the correct law—Impugned order passed by the courts below were set aside and application for impleadment of a party was dismissed—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances. [pp. 223, 224} 225, 226, 227] A, By C, B, E, F, G & H

Khayam Films and another v. Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. 1982 CLC 1275; Said Muhammad and others v. M. Sardar and others PLD 1989 SC 532; Mst. Sardar Begum v. Muhammad Anwar Shah and others 1993 SCMR 363; Messrs Adamjee Construction Company Ltd. through Chief Executive v. Government of Punjab through Director-General, Punjab Sports Board, National Hockey Stadium, Lahore 1999 MLD 2202; and Fazal-Ur-Rehman and 2 others v. Begun Sughra Haque 2000 MLD 562 distinguished.

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government v. Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13; Abdul Hameed Khan v. Mrs. Saeeda Khalid Kamal Khan and others PLD 2004 Kar. 17; Muhammad Ali and 21 others v. Abdul Jalil 2015 CLC 1315; Qamar-ud-Din v. Muhammad Dili and others PLD 2001 SC 518; Muhammad Ashraf Butt and others v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti and others PLD 2011 SC 905; Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others PLD 2013 SC 255 and Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan—

—-Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Scope—When basic order passed by the courts below was illegal, same could be interfered with while exercising constitutional jurisdiction, [p. 226] G

Mian Habib ur Rehman Ansari and Mirza Muhammad Kaleem for Petitioner.

Saghir Ahmad Bhatti for Respondent No.6. Date of hearing: 14th June, 2016.

online advocate from Musakhel lawyer