Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – O. VII, R. 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Institution of Suit Without Valid Power of Attorney – Subsequent Ratification – Scope: A suit for possession based on the right of prior purchase was filed by the plaintiff through an agent under a power of attorney. The defendant contested the suit and filed an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., arguing that the power of attorney did not authorize the attorney to institute the suit, rendering it incompetent. The trial court dismissed the application. The petitioner contended that the power of attorney was invalid as it was neither duly registered nor authorized the attorney to file the suit. Further, a subsequent power of attorney was produced after the expiry of the statutory period for filing the suit. Held, that a power of attorney must expressly authorize an agent to institute a suit, and the absence of such authorization renders the suit incompetent. A subsequent power of attorney executed after the lapse of the statutory period for filing a suit cannot validate an already incompetent suit. A power of attorney operates prospectively and not retrospectively. The trial court erred in dismissing the application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the suit was rejected. (b) Power of Attorney – Strict Construction – Institution of Suit – Retrospective Validation – Scope: A power of attorney must be strictly construed and confers only such authority as expressly stated or necessarily implied. A suit instituted without proper authorization cannot be validated retrospectively by a subsequently executed power of attorney after the expiry of the statutory period. The general rule is that ratification can occur only if it does not affect the rights of the opposing party. In the present case, the subsequent power of attorney was executed after the limitation period for filing a pre-emption suit had expired, thereby creating vested rights in the vendee/defendant, which could not be retrospectively annulled. ----Cited Cases: Muhammad Hussain v. Bashir Ahmed, PLD 1987 Lah. 392 Muhammad Mehrban v. Sadrud Din, 1995 CLC 1541 Muhammad Ishaq’s case, 1987 CLC 2134 ----Disposition: Petition accepted, impugned judgment set aside, and suit rejected under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.