2001 PLP 784 (MLD)

Zafar Ali Hashmi for Respondent No. 1. . Date of hearing: 12th October, 2000. The instant civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30‑9‑1984 passed by Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur whereby he dismissed the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 6‑2‑1984.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that Ghazi Muhammad was owner of land, described fully in the head note of the plaint. He alienated the said land in favour of Muhammad Ameer and Bashir Ahmad. The said transaction was pre‑empted by Mst. Maqsood Mai, respondent No. l being daughter of the vendor. The said suit was resisted by the vendees wherein on 6‑2‑1984 the suit was decreed on the basis of statement.

3. One of the vendees felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur vide judgment and decree dated 30‑9‑1984; hence, the instant civil revision.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that 'initially the suit was filed against him and Muhammad Ameer. However, the order dated 6‑2‑1984 reveals that the said order has been passed on the basis of statement of Muhammad Ameer (since deceased) on oath as well as by his counsel without oath. He further submits that as the impugned order dated 6‑2‑1984 has been passed without his consent, so the same is not binding on him.

6. Conversely, the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below have been supported by the learned counsel for respondent No.

1. His contention is that no doubt statement of only respondent No.2 (since deceased) was recorded on 6‑2‑1984 but the said statement was also coupled with the statement of the learned counsel who had been duly authorised by the present petitioner as well as Muhammad Ameer (since deceased). He further submits that as their learned counsel had signed the said statement dated 6‑2‑1984, so it will be presumed that the said statement had been made on behalf of Muhammad Ameer (since deceased) as well as the present petitioner. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance upon Abdul Khaliq v. Kbuda Bakhsh and 4 others (1989 CLC 1316 (Lahore)), Kulsoombai and 5 others v. Mst. Shirinbai and 6 others (1989 CLC 234 (Karachi)), Dr. Ansar Hassan Rizvi v. Syed Mazhar Hussain Zaid and 3 others (1971 SCMR 634).

7. The on point which requires determination in the instant civil revision is that if the statement of the learned counsel for the present petitioner as well as Muhammad Ameer (since deceased) is binding on th present petitioner or not. The stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as tie was not present on that date and he had also withdrawn his power of attorney from his counsel, so the statement of his counsel is not binding upon him. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for the is nothing on record in writing to show that the petitioner had withdrawn his Wakalatnama from his counsel. This being the factual position it is proved from the record that till 6‑2‑1984 Saeed Hamayvn, Advocate was duly appointed Advocate on behalf of Muhammad Ameer (since deceased) as well as Bashir Ahmad petitioner. He being duly appointed and authorised Advocate on behalf of Muhammad Ameer (since deceased) and Bashir Ahmad present petitioner, was authorised to enter into compromise with the other party. Thus, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of any force.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below do not suffer from any illegality what to speak of material. irregularity, as such the instant civil revision fails I and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./B‑27/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.