1992 PLP 1474 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAFT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Qazi IMTIAZ‑UL‑HASSAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1474 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Qazi IMTIAZ‑UL‑HASSAN and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1474 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1474 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1474 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAFT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Qazi IMTIAZ‑UL‑HASSAN and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑O.III, R. 1 & 4 & S.115‑‑‑Statement of counsel, its binding effect on client‑‑‑Suit filed by five plaintiffs against Municipal Committee‑‑‑Petitioner was also impleaded in suit as defendant‑‑‑Suit against Municipal‑ Committee having been decreed, Committee went in appeal and petitioner was figured in appeal as respondent‑‑‑Appeal was decided against all six defendants/respondents on basis of statements alleged to have been made by counsel for parties‑‑‑Petitioner who earlier was impleaded as defendant in suit and respondent in appeal, admittedly did not engage counsel on whose statement appeal was accepted‑‑‑Petitioner who himself had not made any statement, statement of counsel who was never engaged by petitioner, could not bind petitioner and judgment and decree by Appellate Court on basis of statement of counsel not engaged by petitioner; would not bind petitioner‑‑ High Court accepting revision set aside judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court against petitioner and remanded case to be decided afresh in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Facts giving rise to this Civil Revision are that respondents Nos. 1 to 5, Qazi Imtiaz‑ul‑Hassan and 4 others, riled a suit against respondent No.6, Municipal Committee, Daska, District Sialkot. Subsequently, the petitioner, Muhammad Shari was also impleaded as defendant No.2 in the said suit. The suit was decreed by a Civil Judge whereupon respondent No.6 went in appeal before an Additional Distict Judge. In the appeal, the petitioner figured as respondent No.6. The other respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit, namely, Qazi Imtiaz‑ul‑Hassan and 4 others. On 10th October, 1982, the appeal was decided on the basis of statements alleged to have been made by learned counsel for the parties. Resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court were modified. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not make any statement enabling the learned appellate Court to pass the impugned judgment and decree. His plea is that Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, who ‑ made statement on behalf of the respondents represented respondents Nos.l to 5 in the appeal but not respondent No.6 therein. As indicated above, the petitioner was respondent No.6 in the appeal. After making the above submissions, it was maintained by learned counsel for the petitioner that judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court on the basis of the aforesaid statement of Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, are not binding on the petitioner.
3. I have gone through the power of attorney filed by Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, before the learned appellate Court and find that the petitioner did not engage him as his counsel. Mr. Bajwa had, therefore, no authority to make statement on his behalf. The petitioner did not himself make any statement in terms of the statement of the learned counsel which constitute the basis of the judgment and decree under challenge. In the circumstances, judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court, do not bind the petitioner and deserve to be set aside to his extent.
4. Resultantly, this civil revision is accepted, judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court against the petitioner are set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge with the direction that he shall re‑decide the appeal against the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 20th November, 1991. H.B.T./M‑113/L Revision accepted.