P L D 2005 Peshawar 107 (PLP)

5. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant that the learned counsel representing the petitioner in W.P. No. 1066 of 1998 had withdrawn the same without the instructions of the applicant/petitioner has no forge. Review of Judgment under section 1141 read with Order XLVII, C.P.C. can be sought on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of a person seeking review or he could not produce the same at the time when the decree vas passed or order made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. The ground taken for the review that the learned counsel representing the applicant/petitioner in writ petition had withdrawn the same without instructions from his client is no ground on which the impugned judgment/order can be reviewed:

6. In a similar case titled Mobile Eye Service of Pakistan, Karachi v. Director Social Welfare/Registration Authority, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another (PLD 1992 Karachi 183) it was held:‑‑ "We would like‑ to point out that, none of the grounds enumerated in Rule 1 of Order XLVII; C.P.C., can be found to exist in the present case. Mere failure on the part of the counsel to disclose that he holds no authority from his client to enter into a compromise on his behalf, can hardly provide a ground for review of a consent order based on such compromise. In such a case, there would neither be a mistake or error apparent .on the face of the record nor would there be discovery of any new material calling for review of the order."

7. We would like to point out that in the petition/application for review the only ground taken by the petitioner/applicant is that the writ petition was withdrawn without his instructions but there is nothing in the review petition even to remotely suggest that the learned counsel (Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah) while withdrawing the writ petition with the permission to file suit was motivated by any consideration of fraud or that he colluded in any manner with the other side. Even there is no allegation of misrepresentation. This Court vide order dated 29‑1‑2002 directed Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate to submit his reply to Review Petition/application duly supported by affidavit who in compliance of the order of this Court submitted reply in which he admitted that after the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties were heard, he withdrew the writ petition with the permission to institute Civil Suit. Although he has stated in the said paragraph that the withdrawal was without the instructions of the petitioners but perusal of the Wakalat Nama executed by the petitioner/applicant whereby Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, Advocate was engaged to plead his writ petition authorized him to withdraw the writ petition. To further resolve the matter reference may be made to Wakalat Nama executed by the petitioner in favour of his counsel because the authority of an Advocate flows and emanates from the Wakalat Nama executed by his client in his favour. The perusal of the Wakalat Nama executed by the petitioner/applicant in favour of his counsel empowered him to make any and every statement with the following words:‑‑

8. The authority given to the lawyer is manifest from the wording of the "Wakalat Nama" and no escape can be made therefrom. It is by now established law that admission made by the lawyer on the question B of law is not at all binding on his client because if lawyer agrees to a proposition which is against law, no estoppel is created for it because there is no estoppel against law. This principle is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case because the conduct of the learned counsel representing the petitioner in his independent capacity acted in accordance with law because after hearing the arguments of the other side he deemed it appropriate to keep a remedy of filing Civil Suit alive/open for his client. Since the petitioner/applicant had given authority to the learned counsel to make any statement in relation to the proceedings of writ petition and if such authority's interpretation is made otherwise it would lead to anomalous and absurd results, it would be very easy for a litigant to disown the statement of a lawyer if and when it when his convenience.

9. The principle that the authority of an Advocate flows and emanates from Wakalat Nama is well‑established and should normally be adhered to. In case of Mst. Noor Jehan v. Azmat Hussain Farooqi and another (1992 SCMR 876) it was observed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan:‑‑ "The Advocate having power to compromise can enter into a settlement with regard to the subject‑matter of the suit in respect of which authority has been given. He cannot introduce any alien matter or any collateral subject in such settlement or compromise. The same view was also taken in Surendra Shankar Walker v. L.S Walker and others AIR 1960 PC 158, it was observed that:‑‑ "The authority of an Advocate to compromise is implicit in the appointment of the Advocate unless it is expressly countermanded by the client." It was also observed that:‑‑ "The implied authority of an Advocate to enter into compromise is limited to the action in which he has been engaged and does not extend to matter which are extraneous to the action or which are merely collateral to it. "

10. Likewise in Talah Safdar and another v. Bashir Ahmad and others (1997 CLC 601) it was held:‑‑ "Learned counsel engaged by the parties in a suit always has the authority to appear on his behalf and act in accordance with the terms of his appointment. The offer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners including the minor in the revision petition shall be deemed to have been made by the parties who engaged him. "

11. Similar view was taken in the following Judgments:‑‑

1. Answ Enterprises and 2 others v. Askari Commercial Bank Ltd. Lahore (PLD 2000 Lahore 154) and

2. Mst. Sooban Bibi and 3 others v. Mst. Khatoon and 3 others (PLD 2001 Lahore 245).

12. Same view was taken in Muneer Akhtar v. Mst. Shahnaz Begum (2000 CLC 1743) wherein it was held:‑ "It was further submitted that the order, dated 2‑11‑1998 was of no legal consequence and void as his Advocate had played fraud, which resulted in deprivation of his valuable rights. The listed application is without any substance inasmuch as in the Vakalatnama, filed by Mr. Abdul Wajid Wayne, Advocate, he was authorized by the appellant to withdraw or compromise the proceedings and all acts authorizedly taken by a duly appointed Advocate; are binding on the party".

13. Keeping in view the above mentioned dicta laid down it can safely be said that the learned counsel (Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah) representing the petitioner in W.P No.1066/98 was fully authorized to withdraw the writ petition and his statement was binding on the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Resultantly, the Review Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./347/P Petition dismissed.