2005 PLP 978 (MLD)

Akhtar Ali Chaudhry for Petitioners (in C.M. No.584‑C of 2001). Ahmad Hassan Anwari for Respondents Nos.2(i‑iii)(a‑j), 3(i‑v), 4 to 11 (in C. M. No. 666‑C of 2001 and 3(i‑iii)(a‑j), 4(a‑e) and 6 to 12) (in C.M. No.584‑C of 2001). Date of hearing: 13th October, 2004. On 5‑4‑1971, Mst. Rahmi and Mst. Zaitoon, filed a civil suit seeking declaration that being the widow and the daughter respectively of deceased Niaz Muhammad, they are entitled to share in the estate left by him. The suit was against the legal heirs of Niaz from different wives. The suit was disposed of, vide judgment and decree dated 15‑10‑1995, in the manner that Mst. Rehmi, was declared to be the widow of Niaz, and thus, entitled to inherit his estate, while the suit of Mst. Zaitoon, claiming being the daughter of Niaz, was dismissed. Both the sides filed appeals against the decree; one by Mst. Zaitoon and together by Ghulam Mustafa etc., against Mst. Rahmi. The appeals of Mst. Zaiton was accepted while that of Ghulam Mustafa etc., was rejected, vide judgment and decree, dated 20‑12‑2000. Against this, Ghulam Mustafa etc., brought only one revision i.e. C.R. No. 133 of 2001, which was pending adjudication before this Court, when compromise mark "C/1" was filed in the Court, and the civil revision on the basis of the above, has been disposed of on 2‑5‑2001.

2. Thereafter, two applications under section 12(2), C.P.C., have been filed, one by Mst. Zaitoon (C.M. No.666‑C of 2001), asserting that she has not been given due share in the two other Mauzas, which are valuable lands, and therefore, Mark "C/1" and the order of this Court procured thereupon are the result of fraud and misrepresentation; whereas the other application (C.M. No.584‑C of 2001), is by the other legal heirs of Mst. Rehmi, who claim that Kanwar Muhammad Iqbal, their attorney had no power to enter into any compromise and to relinquish their entitlement to the estate, according to the law of inheritance.

3. Heard. From the record, it transpires that Mst. Zaitoon herself has signed the above compromise deed, she was also present in the Court and affirmed Mark "C/1"; besides, Kanwar Muhammad Iqbal, her admitted attorney, had also signed the said document. I am not convinced if any fraud, misrepresentation etc., has been played in obtaining the order from this Court, on the basis of Mark "C/1". I am not impressed with the argument, that as some of the respondents have not executed Mark "C/1", therefore, it is invalid and as such is also not binding upon Mst. Zaitoon. She admittedly has executed the same, and none for those respondents, who she claims, have not come forward to challenge the compromise or the order, therefore, it is not available to the petitioner to plead for the others.

4. As regards the others application (C.M. No.584‑C of 2001), is concerned, the power‑of‑attorney of Kanwar Muhammad Iqbal, has been examined; he has been duly authorized to enter into a compromise. The argument, that there is no power vested with him to give up the right or the claim of the applicants being the legal heirs of Mst. Rehmi, suffice it to say that the powers conferred upon the attorney expressed in the power‑of‑attorney, also includes the power to compromise. Obviously, the power to compromise is a very vast and comprehensive power, and this includes that the attorney can relinquish or surrender any of the rights of his principal while acting as his lawful agent. Resultantly, I do not find any merit in these applications. No other submission has been made by the counsel for the parties. Dismissed. H.B.T./Z‑85/L Application dismissed.