Termination of agency

2025 CLC 1973 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 199, 200, 201 & 202Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S. 49Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115Suit for cancellation, declaration, injunction and recovery of mesne profitsGeneral power of attorneyTermination of agencyInterest of agentConcurrent findings of facts by two Courts belowRegistered documentPresumption

Applicants / plaintiffs sought cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of respondents / defendant by their predecessor-in-interest who had been appointed general power of attorney

Plea raised by applicants / plaintiffs was that sale deed was registered by the attorney after the death of their predecessor-in-interest

Validity

Agreement which was produced as evidence, showed that possession was handed over to predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants as part performance of the contract

Even if the document regarding death of predecessor-in-interest of applicants / plaintiffs was considered, the power of attorney in favour of predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants, coupled with interest for consideration under Ss. 199, 200, 201 & 202 of Contract Act, 1872, remained valid

Power of attorney, under which respondents / defendants claimed the Sale Deed was executed, could not be considered revoked, cancelled, terminated, or vanished

Presumption of truth, under S. 49 of Registration Act, 1908 was attached to such documents and applicants / plaintiffs could not challenge their execution solely on the basis of oral evidence

Applicants / plaintiffs did not demonstrate any legal impropriety, substantive irregularity, or instances of misinterpretation or oversight of evidence in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

There was no jurisdictional flaw nor were concurrent factual determinations adverse to the applicants / plaintiffs

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts passed by two Courts below as there was no legal error or other jurisdictional defect

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 MLD 1494 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 202Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Termination of agencyGrant of temporary injunction

Plaintiff had successfully participated in submitting tender for lease of land for Petrol and CNG Station and in anticipation of getting dealership for grant of lease he had paid earnest money

Lease Deed was executed for construction of Petrol Pump-cum-CNG station and dealership was promised to the plaintiff for the same

Plaintiff had acquired interest in the subject matter of suit which was the said land in terms of S.202 of Contract Act, 1872

Plaintiff must have put financial and other resources in order to obtain requisite "NOC" from different Government departments

Dealership was offered to the plaintiff subject to successful bidding of land in question

Plaintiff had succeeded in getting the bid approved of the land on which proposed filling station was to be constructed and he had paid heavy amount to procure the said lease

Proposed dealership had been withdrawn with immediate effect and without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff of being heard when he was in the process of obtaining requisite "NOC" for establishment and operation of a Petrol Pump-cum-CNG station

Defendants were restrained by High Court from issuing dealership, explosive certificate as well as approval for construction of building plan in favour of any third party and from creating third party interest with regard to dealership to plaintiff for establishment of Petrol Pump-cum-CNG station at the land which had already been leased out

Application for grant of temporary injunction was allowed in circumstances.

2014 PLD 179 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12(2)Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss.14 & 17Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.201, 187 & 209Fraudulent actAgencyPrincipal and agentDeath of one of the principalsTermination of agency

Petitioners moved an application for setting aside judgment and decree whereby the arbitration award announced by the arbitrator was made rule of the court on the ground that general attorney was not given any power to appoint an arbitrator and file consenting written statement before the court

Application was dismissed concurrently on the ground that the petitioners failed to establish any fraud on the part of the respondents

Validity

Power-of-attorney should be construed according to recitals of the documents on the basis whereof he was exercising his right and any act of the attorney done beyond the power vested with him could not be let go unnoticed and principal was not bound for said act

One of the principals died but the attorney knowing said fact that after his death he was no more his attorney, proceeded to collude with the respondents and filed consenting written statement on behalf of a dead person while showing himself as his attorney which was an example of fraud not only with the parties but also with the court

Respondents being beneficiaries were to prove that arbitrator was duly appointed with the consent of parties and the said fact could only be proved by producing the said arbitrator in the witness box but the respondent did not bother to produce the arbitrator as witness which inference went against the respondents

Non-registration of the award spoke about foul played by the respondents

Prime duty of the attorney was to safeguard interest of the principal and any act done by the attorney repugnant to the rights of the principal could not be given shelter rather the same stood open to attack by the principal

On the termination of agency due to death of one of the principals, it was duty of the attorney to take all reasonable steps for the protection and preservation of interests entrusted to him by the principal on behalf of the representatives of the principal but the act of the attorney was fraudulent

Both the courts below failed to appreciate that attorney had no authority to make statement on behalf of one of the principals.

2014 CLC 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 201Termination of agency

Agency came to an end with the death of principal.

2014 CLD 1672 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 202Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2Termination of agencyGrant of temporary injunction

Plaintiff had successfully participated in submitting tender for lease of land for petrol and CNG Station and in anticipation of getting dealership for grant of lease he had paid earnest money

Lease Deed was executed for construction of Petrol Pump-cum-CNG station and dealership was promised to the plaintiff for the same

Plaintiff had acquired interest in the subject matter of suit which was the said land in terms of S.202 of Contract Act, 1872

Plaintiff must have put financial and other resources in order to obtain requisite "NOC" for different Government departments

Dealership was offered to the plaintiff subject to successful bidding of land in question

Plaintiff had succeeded in getting the bid approved of the land on which proposed filling station was to be constructed and he had paid heavy amount to procure the said lease

Proposed dealership had been withdrawn with immediate effect and without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff of being heard when he was in the process of obtaining requisite "NOC" for establishment and operation of a Petrol Pump-cum-CNG station

Defendants were restrained by High Court from issuing dealership, explosive certificate as well as approval for construction of building plan in favour of any third party and from creating third party interest with regard to dealership to plaintiff for establishment of Petrol Pump-cum-CNG station at the land which had already been leased out

Application for grant of temporary injunction was allowed in circumstances.