2014 YLR 2309 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

MUHAMMAD SHAHID VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL Appointment of pleader--Term , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--12 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--151 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--4 , Misrepresentation--Term , Punjab Rented Premises Act 2009--19 , O.R. 4, Ss. 12 (2) & 151-Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009), S.19---Application for eviction of tenant-Default in payment of rent---Appointment of pleader--- Misrepresentation--- Scope--- Tenant 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.