P L D 2010 Supreme Court 657 (PLP)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----O. III, Rr. 3, 4 & O.XXIII, Rr. 1(1), (3)---Advocate's power to compromise or abandon claim on behalf of his client---Scope---Advocate in his discretion could do so in interest of his client, unless his Vakalatnama restricted such authority---Principles.
• An Advocate has authority to make statement on behalf of his client, which is binding upon the client, unless there is any thing contrary in the Vakalatnama putting restriction on the authority of the Advocate to compromise or abandon claim on behalf of the client. The Advocate's power in the conduct of a suit allows him to abandon the issue, which in his discretion, advisable in the general interest of his client.
• ----S. 39---Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.6---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.II, R.2, O.III, R.4 & O.XXIII, R.1(3)---Suit for cancellation of sale-deed executed by alleged attorney and in alternative for possession through pre-emption---Withdrawal of claim by plaintiff to extent of cancellation of sale-deed---Second suit for cancellation of sale-deed filed by plaintiff before dismissal of pre-emption suit by Trial Court on statement of his Advocate not pressing for relief prayed therein---Dismissal of second suit by Trial Court for being barred by O.XXII, R.1(3) and O.II, R.2, C.P.C.---Such judgment of Trial Court upheld by First and Second Appellate Courts---Plea of plaintiff that his Advocate was not authorized to make such statement, thus, second suit was not barred---Validity---Record revealed that same Advocate after making statement abandoning claim in first suit pertaining to sale-deed not only kept representing plaintiff, but also filed second suit---All this would show that Advocate had acted with authority and consent of plaintiff, who was bound by his acts---Vakalatnama of Advocate had authorized him to make such statement on behalf of plaintiff including power to compromise or refer matter to arbitration---Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal against impugned judgment.
• Gulzarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
• Saeed-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
• 5. Later on 7-8-1985, Sh. Asghar Hussain plaintiff/predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, made a statement before the trial Court that he will only pursue the suit to the extent of pre-emption and withdraws the suit to the extent of cancellation of the sale-deed in question. The learned Civil Judge on the basis of the statement of the Advocate abandoned the claim of cancellation of the sale and ordered that the suit would proceed to decide issues relating to pre-emption.
• 6. On 17-2-1987 Raja Abdul Rahim, Advocate for the said plaintiff made a statement on the ground that he had filed a suit for cancellation of the sale and did not want to proceed with the pre-emption suit. Learned Civil Judge, dismissed the said suit on the same day. Before dismissal of said suit, Sh. Asghar Hussain, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, filed Suit Nos. 145 and 146 of 1987.
• 10. Heard Mr. Gulzarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and Mr. Saeed-ul-Haq, Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents.
• 11. Contentions of learned counsel for the petitioners are that the orders for dismissal of the suits were passed by the learned Civil Judge on the basis of statement of the Advocate not pressing the relief pertaining to cancellation of sale-deed, whereas the Advocate was not authorized to make such statement and suits filed by the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners were not barred by Order XXIII, Rule 1(3) or Order II, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. In support of the contention learned counsel placed reliance on Ghasiram Goenka v. Harbux Goberdhonedas and another AIR 1980 Cal. 477; Din Muhammad and another v. Farooq Mirza PLD 1955 Sindh 62 and Muhammad Hussain and others v. Mst. Hanaf Ilahi and others 2005 SCMR 1121.
• 12. We have heard learned counsel and, with their assistance, have gone through the material on record carefully. It appears from the record that the Advocate for the plaintiff, who made statement regarding withdrawal of the claim in Suit No.336 of 1983, filed subsequent suits for cancellation of the sale-deed.
• 13. It is by now well-settled that an Advocate has authority to make statement on behalf of his client, which is binding upon the client, unless there is any thing contrary in the Vakalatnama putting restriction on the authority of the Advocate to compromise or abandon claim on behalf of the client. The Advocate's power in the conduct of a suit allows him to abandon the issue, which in his discretion, advisable in the general interest of his client.
• 14. From the record it appears that after making statement abandoning the claim pertaining to sale in question, learned advocate for the plaintiffs/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, not only kept representing him but also filed another suit seeking cancellation of the sale-deed and thereafter withdrew the earlier suit filed by him. All these acts of learned Advocate show that he acted with authority and consent of the plaintiff/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who was bound by the acts of his Advocate.
• 15. From the Vakalatnama on record, it also appears that learned Advocate was authorized to make said statement on behalf of the plaintiff including the power to compromise or refer the matter to arbitration.
• 17. While dealing with the issue wherein terms of the Vakalatnama given to the Advocate, appear almost similar to one given to Advocate who was appearing before the trial Court which reads as under:--
• This Court in the case of Messrs Arokey Ltd. and another v. Munir Ahmed Mughal and 3 others PLD 1982 SC-204 held that Advocate who represented the petitioner was competent to enter into compromise.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree