The Power of Attorney, specifically the Agent's issuer for the termination of sections 14 and 13 through the trial lawyer / agent, did not specifically authorize the agent to issue notices before the alleged adverse effect of the petition (applicants). Had filed a pre-arrest claim through his lawyer / agent, who also issued notice of the student's suit, dismissing it on the basis of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991 The agent's power of attorney did not authorize him to be sought and impeached. The power of attorney empowers his agent to establish a case for pre-emption and such authority includes the subpoena and related powers / authority granted by the principal, to issue notice after the petition In the case before the Power of Attorney was limited, the matter and its related matters (suit), and it did not speak of empowering the agent / lawyer to issue notices to the students under section 14 of Punjab. In the Pre-Impression Act, 1991, the authority to make talbes could be delegated to an agent, but such power must be given exclusively and in express terms, and that too in the present case, before the making of the Talbus pre-emptors, would be permissible. E was not exposed. Therefore, their previous claim to sovereignty was rightly rejected by the courts under which the petition was dismissed and the leave was denied \ r \ n
