BASHARAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD ARIF O — 2023 PLD 699 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

BASHARAT ALI VS MUHAMMAD ARIF O. III, R. 1 & O. XXIII, Rr. 1, 2---Counsel engaged by the party, authority of---Wakalatnama (Power of Attorney), singing of---Scope and effect---Proceedings conducted by the counsel---Withdrawal of suit--- Suit was withdrawn on the statement recorded by the counsel of the plaintiffs, however, the plaintiffs later moved application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Appellate Court partly allowed revision moved by the plaintiffs against which order the defendants invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Validity---Engagement of counsel and conduct of proceedings by him on the behalf of respondents/plaintiffs under O. III, R. 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was admitted one---Respondents had appointed the said advocate as their counsel and had signed the power of attorney on their behalf which authorized conducting of suit including recording of any kind of statement---Record revealed that the statement of the counsel was recorded after having moved application while one of the respondents/plaintiffs was also present---Trial Court recorded the statement and ordered to produce the case next day (which date was already fixed for hearing); and on next date/day order with regard to withdrawal of the suit was passed---By signing Wakalatnama, all the powers including withdrawal of suit or to take any step and conduct proceedings had been delegated upon the counsel---Party is always bound by the statement of his counsel unless there is anything contrary in the power of attorney placing restriction on the authority delegated upon the counsel to compromise or abandon the claim on behalf of client(s)---High Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court; and consequently order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the application for restoration of suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, stood maintained---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. O. III, R. 1 & O. XXIII, Rr. 1, 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Counsel engaged by the party, authority of---Wakalatnama (Power of Attorney), singing of---Scope and effect---Suit was withdrawn on the statement recorded by the counsel of the plaintiffs, however, the plaintiffs later moved application for restoration of the suit, which application was dismissed by the Trial Court---Appellate Court partly allowed revision petition moved by the plaintiffs against which order the defendants invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Validity---Appellate Court had incorrectly construed law on the subject and had failed to exercise vested jurisdiction as per mandate of law---High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution was not denuded of correcting the wrong committed by the Court below---High Court set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court and consequently order passed by the Trial Court dismissing an application for restoration of suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs stood maintained---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

BASHARAT ALI vs MUHAMMAD ARIF O — 2023 PLD 699 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD