1992 PLP 1646 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Defendant/petitioner failed to point out that concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below suffered from any material irregularity or illegality such as misreading, misconstruction or non -reading of material piece of evidence‑‑‑Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Syed Muhammad Naqvi for Petitioner. Mirza Hafeez‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 24th March, 1992, In this revision petition judgment and decree dated 24‑11‑1990 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore through which the appeal fled by the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 23‑7‑1989 passed by learned trial Court decreeing the suit of the respondent was dismissed, has been challenged.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner covered the lane while raising construction in the upper floor against which the respondent No.1 filed a suit for removal of the same as it had caused inconvenience in the matter of use of passage as also enjoyment 6f light and air for his premises which is situated in the same lane.

3. The suit filed by the respondent was resisted by the petitioner inter alia on the ground that the same was not filed by the plaintiff or his authorised agent.

4. The power of attorney which was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Ghulam Ali his attorney was produced in evidence as Ext. P.8. I have gone through this document. It has been argued by learned .counsel for the petitioner that in this document no mention was made that the attorney could sign the plaint for filing suit or that he could also institute the suit on his behalf whereas the power was given to defend the litigation filed against the executant. According to this document the attorney was granted the comprehensive power to appoint any legal practitioner to conduct the cases on his behalf and defend cases against him as also to sign, verify and file any written‑statement before any Court in Pakistan. From this I am clear that it was intended in clear terms by the executant that any suit or legal proceedings could also be instituted and signed, on his behalf by the attorney. The expression `written‑statement' with the power to appoint legal practitioner to conduct the case on his behalf and defend cases against him clearly does not mean only the written‑statement as envisaged by C.P.C in the form of urdu-word-- but would include any written document required for filing the suit which could also be verified which would also include the plaint. The two Courts below have rightly held after going through this document as a whole that power to file the suit was very much intended to be given therefore, the judgments reported as Messrs Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd v. Messrs Usman Sons Ltd. and others PLD 1969 Kar. 123, Muhammad Afsar Khan and another v. Khadim Hussain and 3 others PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 143, Munir Hussain v. Mst. Mehrun Nisa (Through her legal heirs) PLD 1982 Kar. 71 and Muhammad Khaliq v. Abdullah Khan and 4 others 1987 CLC 1366 relied upon by the learned counsel are not attracted to this case. In each case the document itself is to be construed directly and by applying the well‑settled principles of law regarding construction of a document to Ext.P8, I feel no hasitation in holding that the power of attorney did confer power on the attorney for institution of suit also. The said intention can safely be spelt out from the reading of the document as a whole.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded that the petitioner has covered a portion of the lane while raising construction on the upper portion on the two walls of the lane. Ext. P.4 was the plan which the petitioner got sanctioned from the concerned authorities in which the said construction was not shown to be intended to be raised. It was rightly held by both the Courts below that the said construction was raised unauthorisedly therefore, must be demolished.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the permission was not sought from the Advocate‑General before filing the suit as a case of public nuisance was made out. I am afraid the argument has no force. The property where the respondent is running school is admittedly situated in the same lane and the learned counsel for the petitioner lratady conceded that this property has entrance from the lane in question as also the main entrance from other lane therefore, the respondent had suffered a wrong in personam because inconvenience was caused to him in respect of use of the said passage as also C the enjoyment of light and air due to which his property suffered adversely and therefore, he could maintain suit because he suffered special loss as against general inconvenience to the public‑at‑large.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy me that concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any material irregularity or illegality such as misreading, misconstruction or non‑reading o material piece of evidence. The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./L‑14/L Revision dismissed.