General Power of Attorney

Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 238
Appelant Side: PHULMAJEERAN BEGUM alias PHULLAN BEGUM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE MAILSI and 5 others
Judge Name: Malik Saeed Ejaz
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 199--sale of land--petitioner being owner of land executed a general power of attorney in favour of one of respondents and document was got registered--after agreement to sell and before execution of sale deed, petitioner being actual owner transferred land to respondents (buyers) through oral sale and got mutation duly sanctioned by revenue authorities in favour of them--possession was also handed over to them by petitioner--suit for specific performance was filed for execution of agreement to sell made by attorney/respondent--assailed--application of petitioner to file independent written reply was declined by both courts below--allegation of petitioner was that the power of attorney was only for management of property because of apparent disability on her part--she being an illiterate & paradahnashin lady was kept under dark and it was not known to her what variety of power of attorney was deriving on basis of the instrument--apprehending mischief, petitioner had chosen to get power of attorney cancelled through abtal nama--held: petitioner still retains her power to alienate or transfer property as principal even after general power of attorney has been executed in favour of some one--petitioner came out with a specific plea that she never empowered agent to enter into transaction of sale--both courts below have fallen in error by not permitting pardahnashin lady to file written statement--petition accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 347
Appelant Side: QUAID-E-AZAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, BAHAWALPUR through its Principal
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another
Judge Name: Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 5--civil procedure code, (v of 1908), s. 115--civil revision--condonation of delay--controversy between the parties--execution petition under reference was filed though belatedly with petition for condonation of delay--father of respondent was used to pursue the matter as general attorney--after the death of his father he immediately moved execution petition for recovery of decretal amount as compensation--at no stage affidavit of any functionary from petitioner's side was got placed on record to controvert the contentions to seek extension--in absence of such a counter affidavit in his petition for condonation would be deemed to have been admitted by opposite side which is the case here--there is nothing on the face of record to make a case for interference by high court with impugned orders when under the law execution court had condoned the limitation in exercise of its discretionary powers in terms of s. 5 of limitation act, after proper appreciation of facts of the case--revision dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Karachi High Court 91
Appelant Side: PAKISTAN TELEVISION CORPORATION
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Messrs BOND ADVERTISING (PVT.) LTD
Judge Name: Khalid Ali Z. Qazi
Judgment Result:Suit decreed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. xxix, r.i--suit for recovery filed by corporation--maintainability--plaint was verified by manager who was attorney and had been authorized through general power of attorney for the purpose as required under o.xxix, r. 1 of c.p.c--power of attorney was produced in court and the fact was confirmed by plaintiff's representative in his evidence which had not been denied or rebutted by defendant in cross-examination--suit held, was filed by authorized person in circumstances.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Karachi High Court 121
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUSHTAQ ALI and 5 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Afzal Soomro
Judgment Result:Application allowed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 8, 39 & 42--contract act, (ix of 1872), s. 188--suit for declaration, cancellation of power of attorney and possession--registered irrevocable power of attorney executed by him in favour of his son was not liable to be exercised during the lifetime, as there was difference between power of attorney and will--validity--section 188 of contract act, described the extent of agents authority; agent having an authority to do an act had authority to do every lawful act and thing for the execution of the same--power of attorney was an instrument by which authority was conferred on an agent--such an instrument was construed strictly and conferred only such authority as was given expressly or by necessary implication--irrevocable general power of attorney in the suit indicated that same was to be operated during lifetime of the plaintiff and after his death same would operate as will--alleged cancellation of said registered general power of attorney did not bear the signature of attorney nor it was registered--attorney was son and attorney of the plaintiff having power to do so sold the disputed property--appellate court below had not considered all said facts and passed impugned order hastily--impugned judgment and decree, were set aside and resultantly the possession of the property in question was restored to the buyer of the property

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Supreme Court 32
Appelant Side: GHULAM MURTAZA
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ABDUL SALAM SHAH and others
Judge Name: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi & Ch. Ijaz Ahmed
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 185(3)--concurrent findings--appellant had failed to prove the contents of the general power of attorney through reliable evidence on record--court does not normally, interfere in the concurrent conclusion arrived at by the courts below in exercise of power under art. 185(3) of the constitution--appeal dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Supreme Court 368
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF & 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD MALIK & 2 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Mian Hamid Farooq & Muhammad Farrukh Mahmud
Judgment Result:Leave refused.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----general power of attorney--transfer of property--liability of attorney--held: if an attorney intends to exercise right of sale/gift in his favour or in favour of next to consult the principal before exercising that right--if an attorney on the basis of even general power of attorney purchases the property for himself or for his own benefit, he should firstly obtain the consent and approval of the principal after acquitting him with all the material circumstances.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 AJ&K Court 173
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD YASIN KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: NAZIR BEGUM and another
Judge Name: Muhammad Younas Tahir
Judgment Result:Revision accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. vii, r. 11(a) & (d) & s. 115--pre-emption suit--improper power of attorney--subsequent power of attorney--ratification of--validity of--effect of--no quarrel with the general principle of law that ratification can be made, where it could not affect rights of the parties--subsequent power of attorney admittedly executed when period of limitation provided for filing pre-emption suit had already been expired and right has been accrued to the vendee/defendant--a power of attorney operates prospectively and not retrospectively--contention of the respondents has no substance--revision accepted, impugned order set aside and suit rejected

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Peshawar High Court 7
Appelant Side: MASOOD ANWAR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SABIR KHAN
Judge Name: Hamid Farooq Durrani
Judgment Result:Appeal accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 84--comparison of signature--trial court had discretion to itself compare the signatures of respondent who had denied the execution of the promissory note--at least three such documents were available for comparison of the signatures of the respondent, which could have been resorted to by the court--those included disputed promissory note, a photo copy of national identity card of respondent and special power of attorney executed by the respondent in dubai wherein the signatures were duly attested by official of consulate general of pakistan--appeal accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 588
Appelant Side: SHAH AHMAD KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab and another
Judge Name: Mian Hamid Farooq
Judgment Result:Petition accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----arts. 93(1)(2) & 57--punjab advisors (salary, allowances and privileges) ordinance, (lxxvii of 2002), s. 3--appointments of advisors to government of punjab--void ab initio without jurisdiction illegal--effect--validity--legal authority to appoint special assistant--terms and conditions--determination--president may on advice of the prime minister appoint not more than five advisors--provisions of art. 57 of the constitution shall apply to advisors and provides that p.m. federal ministers and the attorney general shall the right to speak and otherwise take part in proceedings of either house, but shall not be entitled to vote--president of the country who enjoys vast powers under constitution as compared to chief minister has no powers to appoint any special assistant or advisor except to appoint not more than five advisors and on the advice of prime minister.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Peshawar High Court 63
Appelant Side: ATTA MUHAMMAD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUNSIF SHAH etc
Judge Name: Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 115--o.v, r.7--concurrent findings of fact--declaratory suit filed by petitioners dismissed by courts below--validity--petitioners claimed their case and derive title from "mst. g.f." who sold property to petitioners on strength of general power of attorney in favour of m. shah--lady has not been produced in all these proceedings--they also failed to produce scribe and marginal witnesses of general power of attorney--deed is nothing but an agreement to sell for which plaintiffs can file suit for specific performance--respondents are in possession of suit property right from 1960 and their title was fully supported by record and valid documents--revision petition having no legal force dismissed.
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Tribunal Cases 258
Appelant Side: AHMED NAWAZ, Ex-HEAD WARDER NO. 1962,
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL JAIL RAWALPINDI
Judge Name: Azad Muhammad Awan
Judgment Result:Case remanded
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3--civil servant removed from service--assailed--question of--assailed--held: as per the policy letter produced by civil servant and admitted by superintendent jail was designated authority for initiating proceedings under punjab removal from service (special powers) ordinance against the officials whereas the dig was the authority with regard to the officials civil servant was a head warder in bs-07 and as such the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was contrary to the policy letter and superintendent jail was not authority of civil servant to initiate proceedings or to punish--district attorney produced a copy of the order of the inspector general prisons, which stated that superintendent jail was authority with regard to the officials in bs-01 to 05 and the superintendent district jail was the authority with regard to officials in bs-01 under punjab removal from service (special powers) ordinance--district attorney was not able to oppose the contention against head warder--orders of the superintendent jail and the dig prisons were set aside--case was remanded.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Cr.C 1181
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: STATE
Judge Name: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi
Judgment Result:Bail dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 497--pakistan penal code, 1860 (xlv of 1860), ss. 467 & 471--bail, refusal of--complainant executed general power-of-attorney in favour of petitioner/accused to deal with and look after his land only for agricultural purpose and not to deal with other properties of complainant, erected or constructed on said land--petitioner got registered properties other than agricultural land including rice sheller, building, godown, cattle shed, shops, etc., in the name of co-accused who was son of the petitioner--said properties did not form part of land for which general power-of-attorney was executed by complainant in favour of petitioner--said facts had clearly shown that prima facie criminal acts were done by petitioners--registration of f.i.r. could not be disputed and it was not correct that matter only related to jurisdiction of a civil court--bail application was dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 100
Appelant Side: JAMAL DIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SYED ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH and 14 others
Judge Name: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 115--specific relief act (i of 1877), s. 12--revisional jurisdiction--petitioners were required to place before revisional court copies of all those documents which they had placed before trial court in terms of section 115 c.p.c.--basic document in present case being general power of attorney executed by original owner in favour of general attorney, which is material document to determine whether original owner had authorities general attorney to appoint any agent for sale of property in question--such document having not been produced before lower courts as also before high court, agents authority to sell property in question, was of the consequence--courts below on basis of evidence, on record had concurrently found that petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief--such finding of courts below being which and legal does not call for interference.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 100
Appelant Side: JAMAL DIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SYED ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH and 14 others
Judge Name: Ch. Ijaz Ahmad
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 53-a--civil procedure code (v of 1908), s. 115--agreement to sell--validity--person holding general power of attorney on behalf of owner of property--agent of general attorney executing agreement to sell in favour of petitioner. agent of attorney was not attorney of owner--any agreement to sell executed by such agent was not binding on original owner on general attorney even if he was proved to be agent of general attorney--however agent of general attorney had refuted petitioners assertion that he had executed any document in favour of petitioner or sold him property in question--petitioners being beneficiaries of agreement to sell, they had to prove agreement to sell but could not prove that duly authorized agent of original owner had executed such agreements in their favour--concurrent findings of courts below that agent of attorney had no power to sell property in question was not open to interference and the same were maintained.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 326
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD AMIN and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: AKHTAR MUNIR
Judge Name: Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 42--civil procedure code (v of 1908), s. 115, o. xxxix, rr. 1 & 2--suit for declaration--execution of general power of attorney by petitioner in favour of defendant his real brother--disposal of property by attorney in favour of his sons and daughters by way of gift--suit decreed--appeal accepted--validity--respondent was not party to proceedings--not bound by compromise--compromise deed shows that respondent was not party to it--defence of petitioner taken in written statement was that land had been transferred under compromise--respondent was not party to contract, said agreement/compromise is not binding upon him--law propounded--scope of--power of attorney in alienating property was that where agent alienates property of his principal in favour who were closely related, should in his own interest obtain consent of principal failing which principal was at liberty to repudiate transaction--held: record did not show any consideration was paid to respondent before land was gifted in favour of petitioners--petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2005 Lahore High Court 1007
Appelant Side: SARDAR MUHAMMAD & others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. SAADIA and another
Judge Name: Mian Hamid Farooq
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----burden of prove--matter of validity, legality and execution of general power of attorney--when the execution of a document is denied by one party, onus shifts upon other party, who was claiming benefit from the said document, to prove the execution of the said document under the law--beneficiary of power of attorney is to prove that the document was genuinely executed in favour of respondent when the onus to prove the validity, legality and execution of general power of attorney shifted to other--it was his duty to prove the execution of general power of attorney within the parameters set up under the law--the original defendant failed to produce respondent the general attorney, in his evidence, who was the best witness to prove the execution of the power of attorney--case does not suffer from any material irregularities--revision dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2005 Lahore High Court 1011
Appelant Side: Brig. (R.) ANIS AKRAM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: A.S.P. DEFENCE and others
Judge Name: Khawaja Muhammad Sharif
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 199--writ petition filed for registration of fir--signature of petitioner and one "i.a." on agreement to sell were forged by respondents after adopting the technique of computer scanning--contention of--respondents appeared before the court and produced original agreement to sell and general power of attorney which was admitted document between the parties having their signature and thumb impressions--neither signatures nor thumb impressions of both documents were superimposed--specimen signature and thumb impressions were taken by high court in presence of parties and sent to the director (technical), fia--the report was positive--according to report of the handwriting expert, the thumb-impressions marked on agreement are identical with specimen thumb-impressions of petitioners on his sample paper and power of attorney on the basis of ten characteristics points of identity dotted in one of his specimen print--same is the position of specimen thumb impressions of "i.a."--petition dismissed in circumstances.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1258
Appelant Side: Mst. NAJMA BEGUM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: REHMAT ALI and 22 others
Judge Name: CH. IJAZ AHMAD
Judgment Result:Revision accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-ss. 54 & 41-principle of bona fide purchaser-applicability-defendants having failed to bring on record original power of attorney allegedly executed by plaintiffs and, non-production of alleged general attorney failed to prove sale executed in their favour-defendants were thus not entitle to benefit of principle of bona fide purchasers in term of s. 41, transfer of property act, 1882.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1258
Appelant Side: Mst. NAJMA BEGUM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: REHMAT ALI and 22 others
Judge Name: CH. IJAZ AHMAD
Judgment Result:Revision accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
....s. 54-qanun-e-shahadat, 1984 (10 of 1984), art. 17 & 79-execution of sale deed by person holding power of attorney-plaintiffs denied to have executed power of attorney claiming the same to be based on fraud and fictitious-plaintiffs also denied receipt of consideration and factum of sale-defendants being beneficiaries of general power of attorney on basis of which land in question was sold to them it was duty and obligation of defendants to prove execution of general power of attorney-defendants failed to produce general attorney and failed to produce original deed, couple with the fact that they failed to prove document in question, by producing secondly evidence, thus, with holding best evidence-judgment and decree of appellate court based on power of attorney was set aside being in violation of law laid down by superior courts.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 Supreme Court 161
Appelant Side: FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, through SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mrs. AMATUL JALIL KHAWAJA and others
Judge Name: JAVED IQBAL AND FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR
Judgment Result:Leave declined
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 3-constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 185(3)--leave to appeal- detention orders challenged before high court-whether high court can examine the reasonableness of the grounds of detention so as to satisfy itself that the detenue has not been held in custody without lawful authority or in an unlawful manner or whether high court's order amount to substitution of detaining authority's order-it is not the satisfaction of only detaining authority but judicial conscious is also required to be satisfied that satisfaction of detaining authority should have been based on actual and real facts and not on mere suspicion, doubt or conjectural presumptions-even the subjective satisfaction does not mean satisfaction of the authority without any base-no doubt that the words "satisfaction" has been used in section 3 of the security of pakistan act, 1952 but the powers conferred upon the high court by the constitution under article 199 cannot be limited or taken away by a sub- constitutional legislation and therefore, a balance is to be maintained between the powers conferred upon the high court by the constitution and the relevant provisions of sub-constitutional legislation-it is for the high court to consider as to whether there were grounds upon which any reasonable person could have been satisfied as to the necessity of detention-in this regard-supreme court is fortified by the dictum as laid down in abdul baqi baloch v. government of pakistan pld 1968 sc 313- -supreme court is riot agree with the prime contention of learned deputy attorney general that on the basis of material placed before the court the detention order could not be set aside as the high court was not empowered to substitute its findings with that of the detaining authority . as the constitutional jurisdiction in this regard is confined only to see as to whether the grounds mentioned in the detention order were reasonable or otherwise for the reasons that it is not the question of substitution of finding and the high court is not bound to endorse or subscribe the satisfaction of the authority irrespective of the fact whether any material is available or not-high court is not only within its constitutional jurisdiction to examine the grounds for detention but to see as to whether detention order could be justified on such grounds and if some opposite view after having taken into consideration the material placed before it contrary to that of detaining authority is formed does not amount to substitution-conclusions of high court being well based does not warrant interference-leave declined.
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 Supreme Court 232
Appelant Side: JAMIL AKHTAR and others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: JAMIL AKHTAR and others
Judge Name: IFTIKHARMUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, AC J, ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR AND SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA
Judgment Result:Appeal partly accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 41-contract act (dc of 1872), s. 182-specific relief act (i of 1877), s. 27-general attorney transferring property of his principal in his own name or in the name of his close fiduciary relations has to take special permission from principal-plaintiff never resorted to any such permission whereas registered power-of-attorney was silent about that fact in specific that principal had allowed agent to get property in his own name-subsequent vendees, therefore, could not have known or supposed to have known existence of any agreement to sell between plaintiff and defendant-subsequent vendees were thus, bona fide purchasers for value for consideration without notice within contemplation of s. 27 of specific relief act and no decree for specific performance could have been granted in favour of plaintiff against subsequent vendees.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 Supreme Court 529
Appelant Side: SIRAJ DIN and others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: GHULAM NABI and others
Judge Name: QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ ; DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR,
Judgment Result:Leave refused
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 17(b)~transfer of property on basis of general power-of-attorney~no such general power-of-attorney was produced in evidence before trial court, therefore same was being in non-existence and question of its validity does not arise at ail-any document that purports to create right title or interest in immovable property in terms of s. 17(b) of registration act, 1908, requires registration compulsory~power-of-attorney in question, having riot been got registered its mere registration by notary public was not sufficient to meet requirements of law.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 Lahore High Court 677
Appelant Side: Mst. RAZIA BEGUM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FAZAL HUSSAIN
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ,
Judgment Result:Revision accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 35(2)-suit for pre-emption filed through general attorney le. husband of plaintiff lady~competency--in the context of ownership by plaintiff lady of land in question, in said revenue estate and authorising attorney to file suits with power to make requisite deposits includes power to file pre-emption suit relateable to ownership of land in question-preemption suit was, thus, validly filed by attorney of plaintiff lady.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Karachi High Court 136
Appelant Side: MIANDAD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ABDUL QADEER and others
Judge Name: WAHID BUX BROHI
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 53-a-plaintiff claimed that one of defendants had executed agreement of sale in his favour on receipt of consideration-plaintiffs claim stood o rejected by courts below and rightly so, for the reason that in presence of other co-sharers, said defendant alone could not make valid agreement for sale of land over and above other legal heirs-plaintiff was not expected to pay substantial amount to one of defendants knowingly very well that other co-heirs were not, signing agreement while land in question was in the name of their predecessor in interest-no general power of attorney in favour of alleged vender (defendant) was mentioned in alleged agreement-entire undivided land owned by co-sharers, could not be transferred by one of them-all the circumstances on factual plans were sufficient to indicate that transaction in question was fake and alleged sale-deed was not genuine-finding of courts below were affirmed in circumstances.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2002 Lahore High Court 1231
Appelant Side: Nawab MASROOR ALI KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SAID AKBAR and another
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ
Judgment Result:Case remanded.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 202--general powers of attorney executed by respondent in favour of appellant-respondent also received specified amount from appellant for transferring land in question of appellant after he received proprietary right therein-power of attorney was executed conferring powers on appellant with reference to agreement in question undertaking that power of attorney would be irrevocable-matter in question, had to be decided with reference to entire evidence on record which was riot read in its entirety and appeal was decided on the simple ground that agreement in question was void-case was thus, remanded to first appellate court with direction to rehear appeal on all issue and decide the same afresh.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 FSC 37
Appelant Side: BISMILLAH KHAN and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: STATE
Judge Name: CH. EJAZ YOUSUF AND ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH
Judgment Result:Case remande
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--ss. 396/34 & 397/34 read with offences against property (enforcement of hudood) ordinance (vi of 1979), s. 20-criminal procedure code i v of 1s9s), s. 193-jurisdiction of trial court challenged-challan of case was never presented by police before a magistrate for purpose of taking of cognizance and had been filed directly in court of session merely on recommendation of district attorney-since condition precedent of exercise of jurisdiction i.e. sending case by magistrate to session court as required by s. 193(1), cr.p.c. was not fulfilled, sessions court w:as not competent to take cognizance of offence on "report" directly submitted to it through district attorney and proceedings carried out by sessions court were patently illegal-number of accused persons involved in offence under s. 396, p.p.c. must be five or more and accused in case being only two in number, they could not have been convicted and sentenced under s. 396, p.p.c.--convictions and sentences of accused were set aside in circumstances with consent of parties with direction to advocate-general concerned to ensure that challan of case was fonvarded to magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offence who after doing needful would send same to court of session for trial afresh accordance with law. [p. 45] c, i) & epld 1985 quetta 188; air 1966 sc (ind.) 595; air 1966 ker. 1; 1994 scmr 2177; pld 1984 sc 29; 1996 pcr.lj 1818; (1894) 22 cal. 50;mania khan's case 27 awn 178; air 1927 sindh 28; 42 cal. 856; ilr 15 mad. 352; pld 1977 lah. 535; 1981 scmr 267; 1980 pcr.lj 500; 1979 pcr.lj note 96 at p. 63; 1979 pcr.lj note 116 at p. 74(2); 1992 mld 1992; pld 1979 quetta 156; pld 1982 fsc 95 and 1994 scmr 2177 ref mr. muhammad aslam chishti, advocate for appellants. qari abdur rashid, advocate for state. date of hearing: 28.9.2000.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 399
Appelant Side: Mst. .RASHIDA BEGUM
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD AMEEN and 4 heard
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ
Judgment Result:Revision accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-.s. 54--cm! procedure code, 1908 (v of 1908), s. us-legality of sale-deed on the basis of general power of attorney was challenged on the ground that the same being illegal and fictious was ineffective upon the rights of plaintiff--suit was partly decreed by trial court while appellate court allowing appeal proceeded to hold that petitioner had no locus standi to file suit and thus, set aside judgment and decree of trial court-validity-neither original power of attorney was produced nor any marginal witness of the same was produced to prove the same-no evidence except statement of alleged attorney was on record in proof of valid execution of power of attorney by owner of land who was not heard of for the last 10 years-plea of respondent that certified copy of power of attorney was not objected to when the same was placed on record was repelled, in as much as, he failed to take note of difference between objection as to mode of proof and objection as to adrnissibility-objection as to mode of proof has to be taken at the time when any document was sought to be produced while any document which was inadmissible in evidence even if exhibited without any objection could not be read into evidence-document in question, being not a public document, certified copy thereof, was not admissible in evidence especially when opposite party had claimed that executant was dead before such document was executed-there being no evidence on record of execution of power of attorney hy alleged executant, transfer of property on basis of such document was out and out fraud-impugned judgment and decree passed by appellate court was thus, liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of high court and the same was set aside while that of trial court decreeing suit of petitioner (plaintiff) was restored.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 443
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD AZEEM ETC.
Judge Name: MAULVT ANWARUL HAQ
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 188-civil procedure code (v of 1908), s. 100--general power of attorney executed in favour of appellant by respondent, predecessor- appellant on basis of said power of attorney proceeded to make gift of land owned by deceased in favour of his own son-court's below decreed suit of respondent's against gift in question-validity-scrutiny of power of attorney showed that courts below had committed no error in holding that appellant had no authority to make gift of land in question, in favour of his own son on basis of power of attorney-appellant was although given authority to make gift yet there was no specific authority in the document/power of authority empowering appellant to gift away property of deceased predecessor of respondents in favour of son of attorney- court's below having not misread evidence on recorded conclusions drawn by them in decreeing respondent's suit would not call for interference.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 1135
Appelant Side: Mst. ALAM BIBI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: AKBAR ALI etc.
Judge Name: TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--o.xxiii, r. 3 & s. 100--compromise by husband of plaintiff on her behalf on basis of general power of attorney-such compromise was given ffectchallenge such compromise being un-authorised was decreed by trial court-first appellate, however, dismissed plaintiff's suit-validity- plaintiff in her suit had not claimed that her husband holding general power of attorney had no authority to effect compromise or that she was un-aware of the order of collector giving effect to such compromise-- during trial however, one of witnesses claiming to the special attorney of plaintiff claimed that she had got cancelled general power of attorney in favour of her husband prior to compromise in question, and that her husband had no authority to enter into compromise on behalf of plaintiff- -plaintiffs witness, however, conceded in cross-examination that her husband was her general attorney at the time when collector passed order in question, on basis of such compromise and that they were happily living as husband and wife-having filed suit, after expiry of three years of order of collector, presumption was that she had not only extended consent to compromise but accepted the same-plaintiff s non- appearance in court during trial would raise presumption against her that she being the best witness of compromise, had absented herself to avoid cross-examination on that point-first appellate court having considered the entire evidence gave finding of fact based thereon, which would not warrant interference in second appeal.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 301
Appelant Side: Syed NIZAM ALI and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: GHULAM SHAH and another
Judge Name: MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM AND JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA
Judgment Result:Application allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 12(2) r/w. o. 23, r. 3~suit for declaration and possession-decreed to~ appeal against-during appeal an application u/o. 23 r. 3 was filed by 3 appellants and general attorney of legal representatives of respondent which was allowed-petition u/s. 12(2) cpc filed for setting aside of compromise-a power of attorney creates a fiduciary relationship between attorney and principal which requires attorney to act in the best interest of principal-attorney was required to take care of property-his right to enter into a compromise with any person was only incidental to aforesaid power-even otherwise, power to compromise does not by any stretch of reasoning, include power to surrender or relinquish rights without any quid pro quo-so called compromise, was not a compromise but a complete surrender-purported compromise was also violative of main objective of power of attorney-s.m.a.a. had no authority to accept terms recorded in compromise-high court was misled by misrepresentation made by parties-impugned order set aside-appeal restored-petition allowed.
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 329
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD YAR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. IFFAT SULTANA
Judge Name: SHAIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ
Judgment Result:Petitions accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 115-sale of land-suit for declaration claiming that said sale is result of fraud-dismissal of-appeal against-acceptance of-revision against- initially suit was filed through general attorney--but neither he appeared in court, nor his power of attorney was brought on record-any how another attorney appointed later on, was produced and examined in support of contentions of respondent-stand of respondent/plaintiff was that she never appeared before sub-registrar at the time of execution of impugned sale deed, but she never appeared herself before trial court- petitioner has examined most important witness (sub-registrar) who categorically stated that he had attested sale deed and that a lady had appeared who was identified by lambardar-his statement coupled with statements of other witnesses clearly prove that transaction in question had taken place and sale deed had been executed by respondent in favour of petitioner-suit having been filed by respondent in year 1986, hence, it was incumbent upon her to bring on record documentary evidence o prove her possession over suit land at the time of filing suit, but she brought on record copy of khasra girdawari pertaining to year 1983-84- factum of possession of petitioner over suit land stands, proved even from evidence produced by respondent-suit for declaration by respondent was not maintainable-findings of trial court are based on correct appreciation of evidence and appellate court was not justified in reversing said findings-petition accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 343
Appelant Side: Syed MAZHAR HAIDER and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ALT AHMAD (deceased) through Legal Representatives
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 42--civil procedure code, 1908 (v of 1908), s. us-execution of general power of attorney and mutation of sale challenged through suit for declaration as being result of fraud mis-representation, collusiveness, without lawful authority, illegal and ineffective on rights of plaintiffs- plaintiffs suit was dismissed by trial court while the same was decreed by appellate court-validity-execution of power of attorney having been denied by plaintiff, burden to prove the same would shift to defendant who had got benefit out of that document and was beneficiary of the same-alleged attorney was close relative of beneficiary of alleged sale- person who had signed receipt of loan as witness had admitted that the same was scribed by his clerk and that no consideration/money was passed in his presence-scribe of receipt also admitted that no money was passed in his presence-scribed though admitted to have written receipt of money, yet he had not signed that document-one of two marginal witnesses having not been produced, document in question, would not be deemed to have been proved in accordance with arts. 17 and 79 of qanun-e-shahadt order, 1984-marginal witnesses of power of attorney having not been produced execution of power of attorney was not proved- sale in question, on basis of invalid power of attorney was thus, without lawful authority and mutation of sale on basis thereof, was illegal and void--no material irregularity, jurisdictional defect and misreading or non-reading of evidence have been pointed out in judgment and decree of appellate court in decreeing plaintiffs suit, no interference in revisional jurisdiction was warranted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for general power of attorney
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 1130
Appelant Side: NATIONAL BANK OF PAKIST AN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE
Judge Name: CH. IJAZ AHMAD
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 188-constitution of pakistan (1973), art. 199-relationship of principal and agent on basis of power of attorney-power of attorney executed by specified respondents in favour of accused respondent did not authorise such respondent to receive compensation on behalf of other respondent, and to deposit the same in his own account-such fraud had been committed by accused respondent with active connivance of petitioner bank-wafaqi mohtasib on complaint of aggrieved respondents had taken lot of pain after providing sufficient opportunities to petitioner to come to some compromise as fraud had been committed with aggrieved respondents with active connivance of specified bank manager of petitioners-wafaqi mohtasib's verdict having not been set aside by president, same would be executable-transaction was made by petitioner bank in violation of banking instructions as huge amount was withdrawn without seven day's notice which was pre-condition to withdraw amount exceeding specified amount from pls account coupled with the fact that banking inquiry by specified officer of the bank and opinion of standing counsel of bank whereby they took the stand that general power of attorney did not authorise attorney to open account in question in his own name was rejected by bank officials-constitutional jurisdiction being discretionaiy in nature high court was not inclined o interfere with order of wafaqi mohtasib who had done substantial justice in favour of aggrieved respondents by ordering petitioner to pay them back their money of which they had been deprived by nk's ctive connivance.