Appointment of pleader

2022 YLR 1660 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. III, R. 4Appointment of pleaderScopeRespondent filed suit for specific performance of agreements to sell against several defendantsSeveral defendants including petitioners engaged a counsel who duly filed his power of attorney

Suit was fixed for submission of written statement before Trial Court when one of the defendants (brother of petitioners) recorded statement apprising that he had engaged a new counsel and that the previously engaged counsel would not be his attorney

Previous counsel despite being superseded not only submitted joint conceding written statement on behalf of several defendants, except one, rather simultaneously made statement for acceptance of application for grant of temporary injunction

Trial Court adjourned the case for submission of written statement by the brother of petitioners

Petitioners tabled an application for cancellation of conceding written statement made by their counsel but the application was concurrently dismissed

Validity

Petitioners along with their brother had also engaged the new counsel

Haste in submitting written statement on the part of previous counsel spoke volumes on his conduct towards the proceedings of the suit

High Court observed that previous counsel should have at least omitted/ deleted the name of petitioners' brother, who had already withdrawn his power of attorney

Such conduct of the previous counsel lent support to the stance of petitioners that he, by using their signatures made available to him, had filed the written statement without their instructions

Prompt filing of application qua discarding of the written statement on behalf of the petitioners was again a supporting factor and could not be summarily declined

Impugned orders were set aside and the Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 YLR 1458 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

O. III, R. 4Appointment of pleaderScopeVakalatnama is a document which legally authorizes the lawyer/counsel to act on behalf of his/her client

Once the advocate is engaged through duly signed vakalatnama by the client for a case then all acts of the counsel in connection with such case are considered to be authorizedly taken on behalf of his client till such time the vakalatnama is revoked or withdrawn by the client in terms of the procedure prescribed under the law.

2015 CLC 1315 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

O. III, R. 4ScopeAppointment of pleaderProcedure and requirement

Order III, R. 4, CPC is elaborate enough to deal with all possible situations but basic requirement of appointment of pleader shall always be the same

Appointment of pleader shall be in writing and duly signed by person who appoints the pleader and this instrument must be before the court

No pleader or advocate can act in court of law unless duly appointed by an instrument in writing.

2015 CLC 1315 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2 (15), & O. III, R. 4High Court (Lahore) Rules & Orders, Vol.V, Ch. 6-B, Part BAppointment of pleaderRequirementPower and duties of advocateAdvocates not duly authorizedEffectRevision petition was filed and petitioners were represented by advocate without authorizationMaintainabilityAdvocate filed present petition with an undertaking of filing power to represent petitioners, which they never filedValidity

Present petition was filed by advocate with clear undertaking of filing instrument of authorization to represent petitioners before court, but he failed to place on record written instrument to that effect, which could entitle him to represent petitioners before court and to file petition with his own signatures

Advocate who made his appearance was not duly authorized to represent petitioners before court and his presence was therefore of no legal effect

Petitioners, in circumstances, were not present before the court

No pleader or advocate could act in court of law unless duly appointed by an instrument in writing

Present petition having been filed by an incompetent person was not maintainable

Petition was dismissed in circumstance.

2014 YLR 2309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.III, R. 4Appointment of pleaderScopeApplicability

Word "act" occurring in sub-rule (1) to R. 4 of O. III, C.P.C. referred to the taking of steps to lay the case before the court, as making application or presentation of suit or appeal, however, under sub-rule (5) of Rule 4, it was provided that pleader who had been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall not plead unless he had filed in court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating the names of the parties etc. but under the proviso the filing in the court a memorandunt of appearance was not - required, if any pleader engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who had been appointed to act in court on behalf of such party.

2014 YLR 2309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O.R. 4, Ss. 12 (2) & 151-Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009), S.19Application for eviction of tenant-Default in payment of rentAppointment of pleaderMisrepresentationScopeTenant moved application for leave to contest but the same was declined

Application for ejectment was accepted concurrently-Constitutional petition of tenant wherein ejectment order was challenged was dismissed in limine by the High Court against which appeal was filed before the Supreme Court and matter was remanded to the High Court for decision afresh after summoning the record of the Rent Tribunal as well as the Appellate Court-Constitutional petition was again dismissed by the High Court against which application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. read with S. 151, C.P.C. was moved by the tenant on the ground that neither he nor his counsel authorized the other counsel who argued the case and no opportunity of hearing was given to him and he was misrepresented

Validity- Tenant-petitioner for pleading his cause before the High Court had engaged his counsel but on the date of hearing another counsel appeared on behalf of the tenant-petitioner and argued the case which was dismissed-Tenant-petitioner while appointing his counsel had authorized him to engage other counsel to act in his place or in collaboration with him and had authorized such other counsel to exercise the same authority which had been conferred on his counsel-Construction of document appointing agent was different from the construction of Wakalatnama appointing counsel and in the case of agent the document would be construed strictly and the agent would have only such powers as were conferred expressly or by necessary implication-No bar existed on pleader duly authorized by the party under "Wakalatnama" to engage another pleader without any written instrument to plead the case on his behalf

Power to "plead" would include within its scope and ambit, the right to examine witness, to conduct admission and denial, to seek adjournments and address arguments, etc as might be authorized and such pleader however would not have the power to compromise case, withdraw case or do any other act which might compromise the interest of his client

Tenant-petitioner had failed to bring on record the affidavit/certificate of his counsel denying his association with the other counsel and it would be presumed that the other counsel in view of Order III, Rule 4, C.P.C. and power conferred on the principal counsel through "Wakalatnama" being authorized was competent to appear before the High Court and plead the cause of the tenant-petitioner

Bald assertions in the application could not be accepted as otherwise such would jeopardize the system of administration of justice and when counsel had been authorized under Wakalatnama to present his client, the junior or associate of the said counsel could be permitted without any authority in writing to appear on behalf of the counsel representing the said client as and when the counsel himself was not in a position to appear

Other counsel had contested the case on behalf of the tenant-petitioner and pleaded all the grounds which were available to him for assailing the vires of ejectment order

Tenant-petitioner had not urged any ground of mala fide or collusion or fraud against the other counsel and had not questioned the legal acumen or competency of the other counsel in pleading his cause before the High Court and such was not "misrepresentation" within the contemplation of S.12(2), ,C%P.C.

Application was dismissed.

2013 YLR 2517 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O. III, R. 4Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42Suit for declarationAppointment of pleaderMemo of appearanceWakalatnamaScope

Memo of appearance was an undertaking to file proper power-of-attorney where for some reasons a duly signed power-of-attorney was not immediately procured

Such memo would only enable counsel to plead on behalf of a party for a particular hearing and he was yet to be authorized by the party to conduct all the proceedings

Order III, R. 4, C.P.C. expressly prohibited a counsel from appearance in the court without filing Wakalatnama duly signed by the party

Said Wakalatnama was deemed to be in force until all proceedings in the suit were ended or till such time the power-of-attorney was withdrawn or revoked

If counsel who filed memo of appearance failed to submit a proper power-of-attorney on the next date fixed, then court should issue fresh notice to the party concerned.