Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 485 of 1981, decided on 8th May, 1982.

---S. 115 a 0. III, R. 4--Counsel--Power to make statement in Court- Effect--Statement, made in Court by council empowered through power of attorney to make statement on behalf of client and to make compromise on his behalf, held, would be binding on client if such counsel had not been replaced or power of attorney in his favour had not been withdrawn--Decision of Appellate Court below based on statement of counsel empowered to effect compromise would not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court in circumstances.

M. Z . Barki for Petitioner.

Kanwar Ali Akhtar and Mirza Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent.

This is a revision petition filed by Haji Allah Dewaya, petitioner, against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge of Dera Ghazi Khan, dated 28-10-1981. '

2. The brief facts of the case are that Shatab Shah, respondent, had filed a suit for pre-emption against Haji Allah Dewaya. The said suit was decreed on 6-1-1981 and the respondent was directed to deposit the decretal amount of Rs.1,53,000 in the Civil Court before 4-2-1981. Haji Allah Dewaya, petitioner, preferred an Appeal No. 22 of 1981 before the District Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan, against the entire pre-emption decree, whereas Shatab Shah, the present respondent, filed an Appeal No. 13 of 1981 before the same appellate Court for the reduction of the decretal amount. The appeal of Haji Allah Dewaya, petitioner, was preferred by Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Ghaus, Advocate whereas that of Shatab Shah, respondent, was filed by Syed Kaleem Ullah Bukhari, Advocate. On 15-9-1981, it appears that both the appeals were directed to be heard together on 28-10-1981. The files of both the appeals show that on 10-9-1981, Malik Naseem Ahmad Joya, Advocate, had filed his power of attorney for Haji Allah Dewaya, appellant, in his appeal and for Allah Dewaya, respondent, in Shatab Shah's appeal. Shatab Shah's appeal file shows that on 15-9-1981, Malik Naseem Ahmad Joys, Advocate, entered appearance and stated that he had been engaged for Haji Allah Dewaya the day before and requested for an adjournment. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 28-10-1981. It may be mentioned at this stage that on this date, both the appeal cases were being dealt with together. However, there is nothing on both the appeal files to show that either Haji Allah Dewaya or his counsel Malik Naseem Ahmad Joya, Advocate, informed the appellate Court that the latter had displaced Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Ghaus, Advocate, who had earlier been appointed by Haji Allah Dewaya in both the appeals. Accordingly on 28-10-1981 both the appeals were compromised on the basis of the statements of Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Ghaus, Advocate, made on behalf of Haji Allah Dewaya in both the appeals.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Ghaus, Advocate, had been displaced by his client, Haji Allah Dewaya and that Malik Naseem Ahmad Joya, Advocate, had been appointed in his stead and this was done before Haji Allah Dewaya left Pakistan by air on 27-9-1981. It was, further, contended that the earlier Advocate, in the absence of his client and without authority, fraudulently made a statement on behalf of his client giving up his claims, contrary to the power given to him in the power of attorney, with the result that Haji Allah Dewaya's appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court. In this view of the matter, it was asserted that the impugned judgment was illegal.

4. The original record has been inspected. The power of attorney granted by Haji Allah Dewaya, the present petitioner, to his counsel Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Ghaus, Advocate, shows that the counsel had power to make statements on behalf of his client and to compromise the case on his behalf. The certified copy of Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Ghaus, power of attorney lodged with the present appeal file is a fabricated document and cannot be accepted (sic). At no stage the appellate Court was informed by either Malik Nasim Ahmad Joya, Advocate, or his client, Haji Allah Dewaya, that Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Ghaus, Advocate, had been displaced or his power of attorney had been withdrawn or that Malik Nasim Ahmad Joys, Advocate, would henceforth also represent Haji Allah Dewaya. In these circumstances the appellate Court was within its jurisdiction in accepting the statements of Sardar Muhammad lqbal Ghaus, Advocate, in both the appeals and deciding the same on the basis thereof. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

H . B . T . Revision 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.