Value of defective power of attorney document
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a woman who filed a lawsuit for dissolution of her marriage before the Family Court in Lahore. She filed the case through a special attorney using a power of attorney document. The Family Court judge dismissed her suit because the power of attorney had problems: it was written on plain paper instead of proper stamp paper, and it had not been verified by an Oath Commissioner as required by law. The judge also had doubts about whether the signature on the document was genuine. Since the woman herself had never appeared in court and the document authorizing her attorney to act on her behalf was legally defective, the judge threw out her case.
She then challenged this dismissal before the Lahore High Court. Her lawyer pointed out that she was now present in court in person and was willing to appear before the Family Court herself to fix the problem.
The High Court agreed that such defects in a power of attorney are not fatal to a case. They can be corrected simply by having the person appear in court personally and confirm, through her own statement, that she had indeed authorized the attorney to act for her. Based on this, the High Court sent the case back to the Family Court, directing that she appear in person to resolve the issue, and ordered the trial to be completed within 60 days.
This decision matters because it shows that minor procedural or documentation errors should not automatically defeat a person's right to have their case heard, especially in family matters, as long as the defect can be cured through proper court appearance.
یہ مقدمہ ایک خاتون سے متعلق ہے جس نے اپنی شادی کے خاتمے کے لیے لاہور کی فیملی کورٹ میں مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا۔ اس نے یہ مقدمہ ایک خصوصی وکیل کے ذریعے، وکالت نامے کی بنیاد پر دائر کیا تھا۔ فیملی کورٹ کے جج نے اس کا مقدمہ خارج کر دیا کیونکہ وکالت نامے میں کچھ خامیاں تھیں: یہ عام کاغذ پر لکھا گیا تھا، سٹامپ پیپر پر نہیں، اور قانون کے مطابق اس کی تصدیق آتھ کمشنر سے نہیں کرائی گئی تھی۔ جج کو اس بات پر بھی شک تھا کہ آیا دستاویز پر دستخط اصلی ہیں یا نہیں۔ چونکہ خاتون خود کبھی عدالت میں پیش نہیں ہوئی تھی اور جس دستاویز کے ذریعے اس نے اپنے وکیل کو اپنی طرف سے پیش ہونے کا اختیار دیا تھا وہ قانونی طور پر ناقص تھی، اس لیے جج نے اس کا مقدمہ خارج کر دیا۔
اس کے بعد اس نے اس فیصلے کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا۔ اس کے وکیل نے عدالت کو بتایا کہ وہ خود اب عدالت میں موجود
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2009 Lahore 472 Present: Rana Zahid Mehmood, J. m Mst. AMINA SAEED KHAGA--Petitioner versus JUDGE FAMILY COURT, LAHORE and another--Respondents W.P. No. 3649 of 2008, decided on 11.3.2009. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional petition--Special power of attorney in favour of special attorney can be rectified and cured by personal appearance--Legality--Power of attorney was written on simple paper without payment of stamp paper--Not verified by Oath Commissioner--Document was found defective in law--Reservation on signature of petitioner--Validity--Irregularity or illegality in execution of special power of attorney in favour of special attorney can be rectified and cured by personal appearance before trial Court--Case was remanded to trial Court. [P. 473] A Raja Jahanzeb Akhtar, Advocate for Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 proceeded ex-parte. Date of hearing: 11.3.2009. Order This is a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner challenging dismissal of her suit vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2008 passed by Respondent No. 1/learned Judge Family Court, Lahore which was a suit for dissolution of marriage with Respondent No. 2, while the suit was dismissed on the ground that special power of attorney placed on record as Mark-A was written on simple paper without payment of stamp duty and was also not verified by the Oath Commissioner, therefore, as the petitioner had not appeared before the learned Judge Family Court and suit was filed through special attorney as well, the document stated above was found defective in law, therefore, the learned Judge observed that had the petitioner appeared before him, the irregularity and the illegality stated above could be cured. It is also important to mention that the learned trial Judge had also shown his reservation on the signatures of the petitioner in favour of the special attorney.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner is present in person in Court today and she can also appear before the learned Judge Family Court, therefore, any illegality or irregularity highlighted by the learned Judge Family Court on the special power of attorney can be cured, therefore, petition may be allowed, case may be remanded to the learned trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law and petitioner undertakes to appear before the learned trial Judge. He submitted that a direction may be given to the learned trial Court to decide the suit within 15-days.
3. Respondent is proceeded ex-parte as notices were issued to him through TCS and the receipt is available on record, therefore, as none is present from his side, therefore, he is proceeded ex-parte.
4. Since the petitioner is present in person before this Court today and can conveniently appear before the learned Judge Family Court and the irregularity or illegality in the execution of the special power of attorney in favour of the special attorney can be rectified and cured by her personal appearance before the trial Court, therefore, this petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court/Judge Family Court to proceed further in accordance with law after the petitioner appears before him in person and supports the execution of special power of attorney through her specific statement in accordance with law or may seek the indulgence of the Court by direct appearance and a power of attorney in favour of the counsel. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial to conclude the same within 60 days. (R.A.) Order accordingly