Abdul Haq vs Province of the Punjab through District Revenue Officer/Collector, Gujrat Ss

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

Abdul Haq VS Province of the Punjab through District Revenue Officer/Collector, Gujrat Ss.5, Sched. & 13(3)---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.230---Recovering maintenance allowance from special attorney(brother of judgment debtor)---Liability of special attorney in execution proceedings---Scope---Petitioner sought direction from the High Court against respondents, restraining them from recovering the decretal amount of maintenance allowance from petitioner (special attorney) or from attaching the immovable property of petitioner being Special Attorney of the principal---Respondent No.5 (wife of judgment debtor) filed application for recovery of maintenance allowance against petitioner's brother (judgment debtor), which was allowed -- Respondents were then adamant to initiate recovery proceedings against the petitioner being Special Attorney by way of attachment of his immovable property, therefore in such circumstances the petitioner filed the present petition---The primary question for determination before the High Court was "whether the petitioner, acting as the special attorney, was legally bound to satisfy the decree, or whether it was the judgment debtor himself (the husband of Respondent No.5) who was solely liable to satisfy the same"---Held: The liability of special attorney in execution proceedings must be determined with reference to the specific contents and scope of the power of attorney executed in his favor---Power of attorney must be construed strictly, and only those acts, duties, and obligations that were expressly conferred upon the attorney would be lawfully performed by him---This principle ensured that no implied or assumed obligation could be fastened upon an agent beyond what had been clearly and expressly delegated---Where a power of attorney was silent with respect to payment obligations and the attorney had merely acted in a procedural or representational capacity, no independent liability could be imposed upon him in execution proceedings---Attorney functioned as an agent, not as a substitute for the principal and in the absence of express or implied authority to bind him personally, the general rule under S.230 of the Contract Act, 1872 applied, whereby, agent was not personally liable for acts performed on behalf of the principal---Petitioner, acting as a special attorney, neither made any substantive commitment to satisfy the decree nor exceeded the scope of authority conferred by the power of attorney, therefore, no coercive action could lawfully be directed against him as doing so would amount to an excess of jurisdiction and a violation of the fundamental principle that delegated authority did not create personal liability unless expressly undertaken---Accordingly, the impugned actions of the respondents in proceedings against the petitioner, who was not the judgment-debtor, were ultra vires, without lawful authority, and contrary to settled legal norms---The decree remaind enforceable solely against the judgment-debtor---If the judgment-debtor was residing abroad or was otherwise avoiding execution, the proper legal recourse lay under S.13(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, which permitted the recovery of the decretal amount as arrears of land revenue---Respondents were restrained from recovering the decretal amount of maintenance allowance of respondent No.5(wife of judgment debtor) from the petitioner, or from attaching the petitioner's immovable property, merely on account of his status as the special attorney of the principal---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1768 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Abdul Haq VS Province of the Punjab through District Revenue Officer/Collector, Gujrat art.185(3)---Leave granting order by Supreme Court---Such an order neither constitutes a judgment nor carries binding precedent.

Abdul Haq vs Province of the Punjab through District Revenue Officer/Collector, Gujrat Ss — 2025 YLR 1768 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR