P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

" `Power‑of‑attorney' includes any instrument (not chargeable with a fee under the law relating to Court‑fees for the time being in force) empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it." This is obviously not a general definition to include all documents by which agency is created and refers to a Special form of agency which enables the agent not only to act on behalf of the principal but also to use the principal's name in a transaction made by him as the agent. It is meant for the purposes of the Stamp Act only. The expression "general power‑of‑attorney" is not defined in any statute though a distinction between a special agent and a general agent is well known. This distinction is usually drawn for the provisions of Article 48 of the Stamp Act. The Article, excluding the amounts of stamp duty, is as follows "Power‑of‑attorney (as defined by section 2 (21) not being a Proxy (No. 52),‑ (a) When executed for the sole purpose of procuring the .registration of one or more documents in relation to a single transaction or for admitting execution of one or more such documents (b) When required in suits or proceedings under the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 ; (c) When authorising one person or more to act in a single transaction other than the case mentioned in clause (a) ; (d) When authorising not more than five persons to act jointly and severally in more than one transaction or generally ; (e) When authorising more than five but not more than ten persons to act jointly and severally in more than one transaction or generally ; (f) When given for consideration and authorising the attorney to sell any immovable property ; (g) in any other case. Explanation.‑For the purposes of this Article more persons than one when belonging to the same firm shall be deemed to be one person." Clauses (a) to (c) relate to those powers‑of‑attorney under which the agent is authorised to act in a single transaction and clauses (d) and (e) relate to those powers‑of‑attorney that authorise the agent to act in more than one transaction or generally. The first group is usually described as of special powers‑of‑attorney and the second group as of general powers‑of‑attorney. The idea of one or more, transactions that underlines Article 48 cannot be said to be essential to the classification of powers‑of‑attorney as general and special'. Bowstead has defined general and special agents as follows "A general agent is an agent who has authority‑ (a) to act for his principal in all matters, or in all matters concerning a particular trade or business, or of a particular nature ; or (b) to do some act in the ordinary course of his trade, pro fession or business as an agent, on behalf of his principal ; e.g., where a solicitor, factor or broker is employed as such. A special agent is an agent who has only authority to do some particular act, or represent his principal in some particular transaction, such act or transaction not being in the ordinary course of his trade, profession or business as an agent." In his view therefore, a general agent can be one that has authority to act in all matters of a particular nature. Such acts can be acts that constitute one transaction.

4. In the present case, the General Manager of the defendant company has been authorised to act for his principal in all matters relating to settlement, adjustment and compromise of the suit. The several acts which he is expected to do for achieving the object constitute one transaction, but the power that is conferred on him is general in so far as the contemplated transaction is concerned. The power‑of‑attorney is therefore special for the, Stamp Act and general for making the transaction.

5. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is not a general power‑of‑attorney : then what has the defendant to do to supply the omission ? I was told that one of the devices that could be adopted was to pay the stamp duty of a general power‑of‑attorney on the same document. This is obviously not the correct method of converting a special power‑of‑attorney into a general power‑of attorney. Its contents make it general or special, and not the stamp duty which may be paid on it. Another suggestion was that the defendant‑company' should execute another power‑of attorney and confer on its General Manager the power to com promise all suits that may be pending or filed against the defendant company. This suggestion is not feasible because it will amount to forcing the defendant‑company to confer more powers and authority on its agent than are useful and safe.

6. The above considerations indicate that it is not correct to interpret the expression "general powers‑of‑attorney" used in Order III, rule 2 (a), Civil Procedure Code, as amended by the Appellate Side Rules of the Chief Court of Sind, in the sense in which that expression is generally understood with reference to the Stamp Act. If the idea of one transaction or more transactions embodied in Article 48 is excluded, then it is possible to describe a general authority given in writing to an agent for acting in a single transaction to be a general power‑of‑attorney.

7. The Additional Registrar (O. S.) pointed out that the object of making the provision that an agent should hold a general power‑of‑attorney was to exclude the chances of the attorney imperceptibly transgressing his powers and to relieve the officers concerned of the delicate duty of scrutinizing powers‑of‑attorney too closely. It is true that those who deal with a special agent have to accept the responsibility of seeing that the agent acts strictly within the scope of his authority. If the agent has a general authority then the chances of committing mistakes in this regard are obviated. But from this point of view the power that has been conferred on the General Manager of the defendant company is satisfactory because it is unlimited and general for settling, adjusting and compromising the suit. I think the expres sion "general powers‑of‑attorney" used in the rule should be interpreted as an ordinary expression of English language and the idea of one transaction or more contained in Article 48 of the Stamp Act should not be super‑imposed on it.

8. I, therefore, consider the power‑of‑attorney in question to be proper. The compromise application is, therefore, accepted and the suit is decreed in terms of the compromise. A. H.