Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 430 of 1978, decided on 27th July 1978.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 2nd of April 1978 in W. P. No. )

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Power of attorney authorising counsel to depute some other Advocate to appear on behalf of counsel engaged by petitioners‑Advocate engaged by petitioners deputing his son (an Advocate) to appear for him and such Advocate informing High Court of his desire not to press petition‑Petition consequently dismis sed as withdrawn‑Contention that counsel withdrawing petition had not been engaged by petitioners and he had no authority to withdraw petition, held, unfounded‑Petitioners could not have permitted such counsel to pursue review petition, filed later, had counsel with drawing petition acted in unauthorised manner‑Petitioners not filing an affidavit either of counsel engaged by them or of his son stating latter having not been authorised to appear, plead, and act on their behalf‑High Court's view that petitioners could not in circumstances be permitted to agitate same matter again and again, held, correct.‑

[Power of attorney].

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑---

---Art.185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Settlement Commissioner passing order on basis of evidence available on record‑No relief, held, could be given to petitioners in proceedings for leave to appeal in circumstances.

Malik Sher Bahadur, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Muhammad Ashraf Falahi, Advocate Supreme Court with Kh. Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing : 27th July 1978.

ANWARUL HAQ, C. J

.‑This petition seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 2nd of April 1978, by which a Constitution petition moved by the petitioners to challenge the cancellation of an area of evacuee land from the name of the predecessor‑in interest of the petitioners, namely, Mst. Ramzan Begum, was dismissed.

The relevant fads are that the claim filed by Mat. Ramzan Begum for grant of land abandoned by her in India was verified to the extent of 9,500 Units, out of which she obtained allotment of land to the extent of 5,000 Units in village Madar of Sheikhupura District and to the extent of 4,500 Units in village Behar of the same district. The allotments were confirmed on the 20th of July 1964. The petitioners purchased the land situate in village Madar on the 17th of December 1964. In 1969 information was laid against Mst. Ramzan Begum alleging that she had obtained excess land to which she was not entitled. By an order made on the 6th of February 1973, the learned Settlement Commissioner withdrew from the area situate in village Madar land equivalent to 2,41.6 Units from Mst. Ramzan Begum. Aggrieved by this order passed by the Settlement Commissioner the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 142‑R of 1973, which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn on the 8th of May 1975, for the reason that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that he did not wish to press the matter. This statement was made before the High Court by Mr. Aftab Iqbal Choudhry, son of Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate, who had been originally engaged by the petitioners as their counsel under a duly executed power of attorney.

A review petition was filed against the order of the High Court dated the 8th of May 1975, by Mr. Aftab Iqbal Choudhry, Advocate, but the same was dismissed on the 8th of March 1978, for the reason that it was not pressed by the counsel for the petitioners owing to the fact that in the meantime the petitioners had filed another Writ Petition bearing No. 52‑R of 1978 in the High Court. The subsequent petition has also been dismissed by the High Court by the order under appeal, on the ground that the earlier petition having been withdrawn, the petitioners could not be permitted to agitate the same matter again.

Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that lair. Aftab Iqbal Choudhry, Advocate, who appeared before the High Court on 8‑5‑1975 and stated that he did not wish to press the petition bearing No. 149‑R of 1973, had not been engaged by the petitioners, and had no authority to withdraw the petition, It is submitted that as a result of the action of Mr. Aftab Iqbal Choudhry, Advocate, and the successive orders made by the High Court, the petitioners have been deprived of their tight of being heard on the merits of the case. It is submitted that they are bona fide purchasers from Mst. Ramzan Begum and would have shown to the authorities that they were entitled to retain the land provided they had been given a hearing at any stage of the proceedings.

After hearing Malik Sher Bahadur, the learned counsel for the petitioners, we have formed the view that this is not at all a fit case for our interference. We find that the petitioners had engaged Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate, in their Petition No. 142‑R of 1973. In the power of attorney, according to the averments appearing in the order of the High Court there was a clause that the counsel could depute some other Advocate to appear on his behalf. It was apparently in pursuance of this clause in the power of attorney that Mr. Muhammad Sardar Khan deputed his son to appeal A for him on the date when he. informed the High Court that the petitioners did not wish to press the petition. If, indeed, Mr. Aftab Iqbal Choudhry ha acted in an unauthorised manner, the petitioners could not have permitted him to pursue the review petition, which in turn was also dismissed on the 8th of March 1978, as it was not pressed on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners failed to, place on the record an affidavit either by Ch. Muhammad Sardar Khan, Advocate, or by his son Aftab Choudhry, Advocate, to the effect that the former had not authorised the latter to appear, plead and act on behalf of the petitioners. In the circumstances the learned Judge in the High Court was right in taking the view that the petitioners could net be permitted to agitate the same matter again and again.

For this reason alone the present petition is liable to be dismissed. However, we also find that the learned Settlement Commissioner had passed the order on the basis of the evidence available to him, For that reason as well no relief could be given to the petitioners in the present proceedings.

As a result the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.