P L D 1992 Karachi 102 (PLP)

This is a revision application under section 115, C.P.C. ????

2. The 'applicant had filed a suit in forma pauperis in the Court of Senior Civil Judge (Central), Karachi. It was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 1‑11‑1990. Applicant wife Mst. Tayyeba Khatoon filed an application for restoration thereof which was dismissed on 1‑11‑1990 on the short ground that Mst. Tayyeba Khatoon had no locus standi to apply for restoration. It was claimed that she was Attorney of applicant Nasir Alk her husband, but no Power of Attorney was produced or filed in Court at any stage, as required by Rule 85 of the Sindh Civil Courts Rules. Mr. Jamil Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant, stated at the Bar that he had produced photostat copy of the Power of Attorney before the trial Court. In order to verify his statement, the R. & P. of the trial Court was sent for, but neither any such photostat copy of Power of Attorney is available on record, nor the enquiry, as required by sub? rule (2) of Rule 85 of the Sindh Civil Courts Rules was there. Hence it cannot be believed that any such Power of Attorney was produced or shown to the Reader of the Court. The learned Civil Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the application for restoration as having been filed by an unauthorised person. Mr. Jamil Ahmed relied upon 1984 CLC 1479 Co. Retd. P.G. Braganza v. The Border Area Allotment Committee). This case relates to a Constitution petition filed before Lahore High Court, where it was observed that 'oral authorisation, if genuine, was not excluded'. This report is, however, distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as that the petitioner had appeared in person on first two or three days of the Constitution petition and then filed an affidavit specifically, deposing that he had authorised his agent to institute Constitution petition. Thereafter the petitioner had executed another General Power of Attorney specifically for filing Constitution petition in the High Court. The petitioner was abroad when the agent had filed the petition and no rebuttal was filed by the respondent to pach up the authorisation. Mr. Jamil Ahmed has also cited PID 1969 Kar. 123 (Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Usman Sons Ltd.). The case relates to an equitable mortgage by deposit of Title Deeds. The ruling does not help the applicant, because it has been specifically held therein that a Power of Attorney confers upon the agent, authority to perform only specified acts on behalf of the principal. The agent can neither go beyond, nor deviate from the terms of the instrument.

3. Under these circumstances I do not find any justification for interfering with the order of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned 1st Appellate Court. It, appears from the record that the applicant had also approached this Court on the administration side on 15‑5‑1991. Member, Inspection Team had advised the applicant to file a proper application for restoration of his pauper suit. Instead of filing the restoration application, he filed application for review of the order dated 13‑4‑1991 passed by the Ist Appellate Court, which was dismissed for obvious reasons. Under these circumstances I dismiss the revision application in limine. However, the applicant is at liberty to file an application for restoration of his pauper suit before the trial Court as was advised to him by the Member of Inspection Team. The application will, however, be subject to ail just exceptions. AA./N‑386/K?????????????????????? Revision dismissed.