P L D 1966 Azad J & K 13 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SHARIF, ACTG. C. J.‑This is a revision petition against the order of the Sub‑Judge, Mirpur, dated 19‑8‑

63. The, facts giving rise to this revision petition are that after the Sub‑Judge had ordered the File No.. 436 Civil Suit "Muhammad Sharif v. Mst. Nazir Begum" instituted in the Court of the Munsiff, Mirpur, during the Dogra Regime to be brought out by order dated 13‑2‑62 (which was the subject of revision) in Civil Revision File No. 11/62 before the Full Bench; the case was fixed for 26‑3‑62 in the Court of Sub‑Judge, Mirpur. The plaintiff or his counsel did not appear when the case was called on 26‑3‑62 and the suit was dismissed for default of appearance. On 29‑3‑62 the plaintiff‑applied through his counsel Mr. M. Y. Saraf Advocate for the restoration of the suit. It was shown in this application that the plaintiff was in England and that his Mukhtar could not Attend the Court due to illness and ‑ that the counsel was busy in another Court, therefore, he could not appear when the case was called. It was further shown in this application that the file had been ordered to come up on 26‑3‑62 simply for orders after having been brought out from the Record Room because a revision petition had already been filed in the High Court against the order bringing out the file from the Record Room. Objection was taken by the opposite‑party, who is the petitioner before us to the restora tion of the suit on the ground that the application for restoration had not been signed by the plaintiff but by his counsel Mr. Saraf who had no authority in writing for acting on behalf of the plaintiff, and that in making an application for restoration of the suit the learned counsel was‑ acting within the meaning of Order III, rule 4, C. P. C. The objection was that though a wakalatnama had been executed in his favour by the plaintiff when making the application under section 151, C. P. C. for bringing out the file from the Record Room, he had been retained only for prosecuting that application; and that after the bringing out of the file from the Record Room the counsel required a fresh wakalatnama authorising him to act further on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Sub‑Judge by his order, dated 19‑8‑63 over‑ruled the objection and held that the counsel had been retained for the prosecution of the entire case; and that he did not require a fresh authority in writing for making the application for restoration of the suit. The learned Sub‑Judge held that there was sufficient cause for the restoration of the suit and the application was also within the time therefore, he ordered the suit to be restored to its original number on payment of Rs. 25 costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the same objec tions before us that he had raised before the trial Court. He argued that the plaintiff had retained the counsel only for the prosecution of his application made under section 151, C. P. C. and that the counsel required a fresh power of attorney for acting when making an application for the restoration of the suit which had been dismissed for default of appearance. The learned counsel relies on Order III, rule 4, which reads: "No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment." This is sub‑rule (1). Mr. Saraf learned counsel for the respondents relies on sub‑rule (2) of rule 4, Order III which reads: "Every such appointment shall be filed in Court and shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client." Mr. Saraf has also read out from his wakalatnama which is on the file of the trial Court (File No. 5, date of institu tion 8‑4‑57) and has shown that it is incorporated in this wakalatnama that in case of restoration the counsel shall have power to take further steps for the completion of the case. The last clause of sub‑rule (2) of rule 4, Order III, C. P. C. is pertinent to the facts of the present case which provided that every such appointment shall be deemed to be in force until all the proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client. It could not be said that the plaintiff had retained Mr. Saraf as his counsel only for the prosecution of the appli cation made under section 151, C. P. C. If this has been intended either the plaintiff would have restricted powers of the counsel by saying that he was authorising him only fox the prosecution of the application made under section 151 C. P. C. or the counsel in his endorsement accepting the wakalatnama would have written that he was accepting the wakalatnama only for the purpose of the prosecution of the application made under section 151, C. P. C. There is no mention of the application under section 151, C. P. C. in the wakatat nama by which Mr. Saraf was retained by the plaintiff as his counsel. The law presumes that when the plaintiff executed the wakalatnama in favour of his counsel, this authority in writing was to remain in force until all proceedings in the suit were ended so far as regards the plaintiff. The contention of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor is not tenable. The revision petition is dismissed. Costs shall abide the event. S. A. H./S. Q. Petition dismissed.