Find a Lawyer

Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 236‑K of 1985 in Civil Appeal No. 217‑K of 1984, decided on 24th August, 1986.

--‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15‑ Respondent landlord contending that appellant‑tenant whose petition for leave to appeal had been admitted by Supreme Court was no more interested in rented shop in dispute and that someone else was interested in shop and filed petition for leave to appeal by forging signatures of appellant‑tenant‑‑Respondent in circumstances praying for summary dismissal of appeal‑‑Controversy raised relating to one of fact‑ Advocate‑on‑Record for appellant‑tenant asserting that power of attorney filed by him with petition for leave to appeal was in fact signed by appellant‑‑He owned appellant as his client and refuted allegation of forgery‑‑Appellant also owned his signatures on power of attorney and owned and rectified actions of his Attorney‑on‑Record‑‑Held, assertion made by appellant coupled‑ with statement of attorney was enough in circumstances to hold that petition for leave to appeal was filed by Attorney on behalf of appellant himself and not on asking and for benefit of anybody else‑‑Plea urged by respondent for summary dismissal of appeal not accepted in circumstances.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 15‑‑Forgery of signatures‑‑Mere fact that spellings of signatures of signatory differed on some documents, held, did not by itself either in law or in fact show that they were not his signatures.

Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

A.K.M. Idris, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 24th August, 1986.

The respondent (landlord) in this appeal has through this application sought summary dismissal of the appeal on the ground that Zoyab appellant was never interested in challenging the High Court decision against him, wherein the order of his eviction from a shop was confirmed. The precise plea raised in the application is that the appellant (tenant) did not sign the power of attorney purported to have been executed in favour of Mr. Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record who drafted and filed the petition for leave to appeal which having been allowed, the appeal is pending decision before this Court. It has further been asserted in the application that the appellant himself is no more interested in retaining the shop, that he has gone abroad and that someone else interested in the shop filed the petition for leave to appeal by forging the signatures of the appellant.

In reply the appellant has submitted a rejoinder on facts which is supported by two affidavits: One sworn by himself and the other by his A .O. R. Mr. Ali Akbar. The position taken by the appellant's side is that he did sign the power of attorney and that variation in his signatures is due to lack of proper education. He owned the signatures on the power of attorney as his own in so many words and has also asserted that the petition for leave to appeal was filed on his behalf by his duly constituted attorney the learned A.O.R. Accordingly, any formal defect in the signing of the power of attorney notwithstanding, it should be accepted and acted upon as having been duly owned by him.

Learned counsel for the applicant (landlord respondent) has vehemently argued that there is visible difference in the signatures of the appellant those made before the Rent Controller as well as the High Court and the one on the power of attorney. Not only this but also that the two sets of signatures are with different spellings. He further while conceding that a litigant is entitled in law to own a power of attorney even if not signed by him and can also thus rectify the acts done by his attorney argued that the said principle is not attracted here because the appellant has acted mala fide and has changed his position to suit the situation where necessary. In short he argued that in the circumstances of this case the appellant should not be permitted to own his signatures as it would perpetuate a fraud.

After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides we have come to the conclusion that essentially the controversy raised in these miscellaneous proceedings seeking the summary dismissal of an appeal pending in this Court, is one of fact. In order to satisfy ourselves the learned Advocate‑on‑Record for the appellant Mr. Ali Akbar was questioned regarding the factual controversy. He in the statement made at the bar asserted that the power of attorney filed by him with the petition for leave to appeal was in fact signed by the appellant. Not only this, he owned the appellant as his client in this case. He refuted the allegation made from the applicant side that the signatures of the appellant on the power of attorney was a forgery. This coupled with the assertions made by the appellant himself owning the signatures on the power of attorney as well as the filing of that petition for leave to appeal, is enough in the circumstances of this case to hold that the petition for leave to appeal was filed by Mr. Ali Akbar, Advocate‑on‑Record on behalf of the appellant himself and not on the asking and for the benefit of anybody else. The mere fact that the spellings of the signatures of the appellant differ on some documents does not by itself either in law or in fact show that they are not his signatures. Learned counsel remained unable to controvert the proposition that one person may have one or more than one types of signatures. There is nothing in law to prohibit such a practice. Even the visible difference in the signatures in view of the explanation offered from the appellant side that they are of a person who is not much literate is of no help to the applicant in the background of the case stated above. The appellant has owned the signatures on the power of attorney and having owned and rectified the actions of his A.O.R. we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that the appeal merits summary dismissal on the plea raised in this application. The same accordingly is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The appeal shall be fixed for hearing on merits in due course.

M . Y . H . 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.