2010 C L C 1471
[Quetta]
Before Mrs. Syeda Tahira Safdar, J
Dr. LIAQUAT ALI ---Petitioner
Versus
ASHFAQ AHMED ---Respondent
Civil Revision No.16 of 2009, decided on 30th April, 2010.
Civil Procedure Co de (V of 1908) ---
----S. 115 ---Suit for damages ---Revision petition ---Suit was filed by the plaintiff through his
attorney ---Defendant along with his written statement filed application contending that no
valid power -of-attorney existed in favour of sa id attorney ---Trial Court allowing said
application of defendant, dismissed the suit vide impugned order and the plaintiff had sought
setting aside of that order being contrary to law and facts in revision ---Revision petition was
also filed by the same att orney ---Impugned order showed that despite giving several
opportunities, alleged attorney of the plaintiff had failed to produce power -of-attorney
allegedly executed in his favour by the plaintiff before the Trial Court ---Power -of-attorney
filed along with revision petition did not pertain to the present case ---Alleged attorney and
the counsel for the plaintiff had tried to mislead the court by placing power -of-attorney on
record, which was not relevant in the case, which was highly objectionable ---Revision
petition had been filed by a person having no valid legal authority vested in him for filing the
petition on behalf of the plaintiff, petition was dismissed being not maintainable.
2006 SCMR 21 ref.
M. Rauf Hashmi for Petitioner.
Ashfaq Ahmed for Respondent.
ORDER
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. ---Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with
contention that the suit filed by him seeking damages to the tune of Rs.10,000,000 against the
respondent on ground that he had filed a suit for damages of Rs.25000 on false and fabricated
grounds against him (petitioner), which was contested, while dismissed by the trial court
through judgment made on 30 -12-2006, due to the same his reputation and repute was
seriously and adversely affect ed, thus he became entitled for damages. The suit was contested
by the respondent, while along with written statement an application was also filed, wherein
it was contended that no valid power of attorney exists in favour of Asghar Ali. The trial
court wh ile allowing the application dismissed the suit through order dated 18 -12-2008. The
petitioner sought setting aside of this order being contrary to law and facts, without
appreciating the factual position, no opportunity of hearing was given. He prayed for remand
of the case for deciding the matter on merits.
During stage of katcha peshi the counsel for the petitioner was put on notice to address the
point that whether any appeal lies from the impugned order in order to attract section 115,
C.P.C. Learn ed counsel for the petitioner has relied on subsection (2) of section 115, C.P.C.
and asserted that the order impugned in present petition does not come within purview of
term case decided. As the case is not decided on merits, therefore, present revision petition is
maintainable. He relied on judgment of Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2006 SCMR
21.
Through instant petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18 -12-2008, whereby
the trial court i.e. Civil Judge -I, Quetta, dismissed the s uit filed by the petitioner being filed
by the so -called attorney Asghar Ali without authority and with fraud with costs of Rs.20,000
to the Attorney Asghar Ali, with further direction of lodging of criminal case against him
(Asghar Ali).
Before dilati ng on the point/question of maintainability of present petition as framed on 2 -9-
2009 by this court, it is noticed that the present revision petition is also filed by said Asghar
Ali in capacity of attorney of petitioner Liaquat Ali. The petition, accompan ying affidavit and
Vakalat Nama are also signed by the said Attorney. A photocopy of Special Power of
Attorney is also filed along with the petition. The perusal of the same reveals that the
petitioner Liaquat Ali empowers Asghar Ali to act as his Special Attorney in respect of case
filed by Ashfaq Ahmed (respondent) for recovery of Rs.25000 against him. This power of
attorney is attested by Notary Public, which bears date 26 -11-2006 and further attested by
Oath Commissioner bearing date 24 -7-2006. This pow er of attorney is not challenged by any
one during course of trial of mentioned case. Rather the authority of said Asghar Ali was only
disputed when a suit for recovery of Rs.10,000,000 as damages was filed by him on behalf of
Liaquat Ali against the respo ndent. The perusal of impugned order reveals that an inquiry
was conducted by the trial court to ascertain the fact that what is the mental and physical
condition of the petitioner/ plaintiff. Report of M.S. District Headquarter Hospital, Dera
Allah Yar wa s called by the trial court, which was received. While statement of
petitioner/plaintiff was got recorded through Tehsildar Dhadar. It is further apparent from the
impugned order that despite giving several opportunities the attorney namely Asghar Ali
failed to produce power of attorney executed in his favour by Liaquat Ali before the trial
Court in respect of said case. At present too, the instant petition has been filed before this
court by the same person namely Asghar Ali claiming himself to be attorney of the petitioner.
He along with the petition filed copy of power of attorney, though issued by the petitioner in
his favour, but as mentioned above the same does not pertains to the case in hand. The
attorney and the counsel for the petitioner tried to m islead this court also, by placing the
document i.e. power of attorney on record, which is not relevant in present case, which is
highly objectionable.
Without touching merits of the case, as the present petition has been filed by a person having
no va lid or legal authority vested in him for filing the present petition on behalf of petitioner
Liaquat Ali, therefore, the revision petition is dismissed being not maintainable.
A.R.K./49/Q Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.