2009 PLP 905 (CLD)

KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.

C.M.A. 1135 of 2004:--This is an application under Order XXV, Rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C. filed on behalf of the defendant with a prayer to direct the plaintiff to submit security for the payment of cost. In the affidavit in support of the application sworn by an officer of the defendant it is alleged that the plaintiff is a foreign company permanently based and having its principal business at Washington DC USA and the plaintiff do not possess any immovable property in Pakistan. It is further alleged that the plaintiff suit being frivolous, vicious, baseless likely to be dismissed and since the plaintiff do not possess any immovable property in Pakistan as such plaintiff is liable to furnish security of cost to be incurred by the defendant. It is prayed that the plaintiff may be called upon to furnish security of cost in a sum of Rs. 1 million. The plaintiff had filed counter-affidavit and denied the allegation levied upon him and stated that the plaintiff is the largest software company in the world conducting business through a duly constituted attorney in Pakistan and cannot be suspected of not paying costs of the suit if that become payable. Heard Ms. Shazia Tasnim, learned Advocate for the defendant, Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan, learned Advocate for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff is a company having no asset in Pakistan, and it is not the case of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff Attorney who is Pakistani can be held personally liable to pay the cost. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff is directed to deposit or furnish Bank guarantee with the Nazir of this Court in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac Only) within four weeks from the .dale of order. My view finding support from the case of Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Arif Muhammad Gondal and 2 others 1997 CLC

227. C.M.A. 7790 of 2002.--By this application defendant has prayed for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that from the bare perusal of the plaint same does not disclose any actionable claim and has been filed without any lawful authority. Ms. Shazia Tasnim, learned, Advocate for the defendant argued that Mr. Nuzhat Khan was appointed as Attorney by plaintiff was not authorized to appoint Sub-Attorney who had verified and signed the plaint and the plaint is liable to be rejected. The learned Advocate further argued that by the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of Mr. Nuzhat Khan was not authorized to file the suit and to verify plaint consequently the said Power cannot be delegated to Sub-Attorney. I have gone through the Power of Attorney and Sub-Attorney on record. Power of Attorney dated 16th September, 2002 is duly notarized and was executed by Mr. Nancy J. Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the plaintiff-Company appointing Mr. Nuzhat Khan as lawful Attorney to act solely subject to the instruction of Naseer Ali Khasaeneh or Jedfrey Steinhardt written oral of or by facsimile in connection with all kinds of civil and/or criminal litigation and actions to be filed against or on behalf of our company relating to infringement of intellectual property rights with powers to represent company before Court, etc. From perusal of the said Power of Attorney it appears that the Attorney was authorized to represent plaintiff-company and in connection with civil and criminal litigation and action to be filed against or on behalf of the company. In my tentative view by authorizing the attorney for an "action to be filed" the plaintiff has authorized the Attorney to file suit on behalf of its company. For the foregoing reasons tentatively one can say that Sub-Attorney has rightly instituted suit on behalf of the plaintiff-company; however, issue has been framed about the maintainability of the suit in its present form as well as where the plaint disclose any cause of action. For the foregoing reasons the application is dismissed with no order as to costs, I would like to observe here that the observation made here-in-above are tentative in nature, and after recording of evidence, or material brought on record that the person who executed power has no authority to execute power of attorney on behalf of the plaintiff-Company, defendant can move another application if so advised. H. B.T./M-69/K Order accordingly.