' Brief facts out of which present revision petition arises are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for possession through specific performance and permanent injunction against the petitioner. The contents of the plaint reveal that the petitioner and respondent No,2 entered into an agreement to sell on 4-2-1991 qua the land in question for consideration of Rs,3,15,000. The petitioner and respondent No,2 received Rs,2,00,000 as earnest money according to the agreement dated 4-2- 1991. The stipulated period for execution of sale-deed of land in question was settled on 17-3-1991.
The petitioner and respondent No,3 contested the suit before the Civil Judge, controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff vide agreement to sell dated 4-2-1991 for Rs,3,15,000 and received Rs,3,00,000 on payment thereof? OPP
(ii) Whether the suit ' is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(iii) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action ? OPD
(v) Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPD
(vi) Whether the suit is not proceedable in view of preliminary objection No,7 of the written statement? OPD
(vii) Whether the plaintiff received the signatures of defendant on the blank paper and fraudulently fabricated the alleged agreement to sell and as such, the same is void, without consideration? OPD
(viii) Relief.
' The petitioner/defendant No,1 engaged Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate on 31-5-1994, who had filed power-of-attorney before the learned trial Court Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant No,1 had engaged Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Mir and Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Advocates, who had also filed their power-of-attorney on 28-5-1995. The case was fixed before the learned trial Court on 26- 2-1996 for evidence of respondent No, 1/plaintiff. On the said date, witnesses of respondent No,1/plaintiff were not present before the learned trial Court. The petitioner was present in the Court on 26-2-1996 and the case was allegedly adjourned for 26-3-1996. The petitioner/defendant No,1 noted the next date of hearing as 26-3-1996 and informed his counsel namely Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Mir and Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Advocates at Lahore on the same day. The petitioner/defendant No,1 appeared before the learned trial Court on 26-3-1996 and the case was not listed in the cause list. The petitioner/defendant No,1 inquired the Reader of the learned trial Court qua the case, who intimated that date of hearing was fixed 25-3-1996 and on the said date, evidence of the plaintiff was recorded by the learned trial Court in the absence of petitioner/defendant No,1 as well as his counsel Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Mir and Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Advocates. The petitioner/defendant No,1 filed an application for re-examining the witnesses of the plaintiff before the learned trial Court with the payer that witnesses of the plaintiff be recalled and re-examined and the petitioner/defendant No,1 be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses in the interest of justice and fairplay, but the learned trial Court dismissed the same vide order dated 12-3-1996. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate, Pasroor had no lawful authority to conduct the cross-examination on behalf of the petitioner/ defendant No,1 qua the witnesses of respondent No, 1/plaintiff as the petitioner had replaced his counsel by filing power-ofattorney of Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Mir and Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Advocates, Lahore, therefore, Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate was no more counsel of the petitioner/defendant No,1, but this fact was not considered by the learned trial Court in its true perspective. He further submits that Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate had examined the witnesses of the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 with connivance of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 and did not cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 on material points specially on Issues Nos.6 and 7, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in law to dismiss the application of the petitioner. He further' submits that Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate had cross-examined the witnesses of respondent No,1/plaintiff without instructions from the Senior Counsel, but this fact was also not considered by the learned trial Court in its true prospectus.
5. The learned counsel of respondent No,3 submits that he has no objection to accept this revision petition.
6. The service of respondent No,2 has been effected, but he did not enter appearance, therefore, ex parte order was passed against her. Office sent various notices to respondent No,1, but he did not enter appearance. The last notice was sent to respondent No,1 through registered A.D. By the office on 27-9-2003 for 13-10-2003, but respondent No,1 did not enter appearance. In this view of the matter, I have no other alternative except to pass an ex parte order against respondent No,l.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of parties and perused the record.
8. It is admitted fact that the petitioner had engaged Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate, who had filed power-of-attorney on behalf of petitioner/defendant No, 1 . His power-of-attorney was not cancelled by the petitioner before the learned trial Court as well as stand of the petitioner before this Court that power-of-attorney filed by Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate on behalf of petitioner/defendant No,1 was not cancelled. It is settled principle of law that the appearance by Advocate means appearance by party himself as per law laid down by this Court in Bhagwan Prasad v. Madam Murari Lal and others AIR 1929 Allahabad 811. It is pertinent to mention here that wording of power-of-attorney authorized the Advocate to cross-examine the witnesses of respondent/plaintiff. The wording of power-of-attorney does not contain a single word that the Advocate has to secure the instructions before cross-examining the witnesses. Even, the statement of the Advocate is accepted by the Court in view of Order 3 of C.P.C. It is admitted fact that Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Ali, Advocate had cross-examined the witnesses of respondent/plaintiff at the time when his power-of-attorney was not cancelled by the petitioner/defendant No,1, who had filed power-of-attorney on behalf of petitioner-defendant No,1 on 31-5-1994. It is also admitted fact that petitioner/ defendant No,1 had engaged Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Mir and Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Advocates, who had also filed power-ofattorney on 28-5-1995 before the learned trial Court, but this fact was considered by the learned trial Court and rejected the same on the ground that original counsel could not cease to act on his behalf unless and until his power-of-attorney is cancelled by the petitioner/ defendant No,
1. In view of Order 3, rule 4, C.P.C. Once an Advocate appointed by a party in a case owes a duty to the Court under Order 3, C.P.C. As the law laid down in Rehmat Bi v. Manzoor Ali Khan PLD 1975 Karachi 1066. It is also settled principle of law that if an Advocate does not represent his client properly the opposite-party is not to be blamed for the consequences of his neglect as the law laid down by this Court in Kher v. Muhammad Sadiq PLD 1992 Lahore 169. Any statement made by the Advocate in Court is binding on party and party cannot be resiled on the score that the party was not present in the Court as the law laid down in Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Ishaq 1992 CLC 816. It is also settled principle of law that all the acts of an Advocate authorized to act on behalf of his client must necessarily be taken as an act of his client and binding on the party. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the law laid down in Noor Muhammad v. Muhammad Shafi 1986 SCMR 127. Under Order 3, rule 4 of C.P.C. The power-of- E attorney in favour of counsel enures till its termination with the permission of the Court or till the proceedings are finally ended. Order 3, rule 4, C.P.C. Was interpreted by the Karachi High Court in Rehmat Bi v. Manzoor Ali Khan PLD 1975 Karachi 1066 and laid down a principle that an Advocate after having signed the Vakalatnama filing written statement owes a duty to Court under Order 3, C.P.C. To make his appearance as and when called upon. Therefore, trial Court was justified to dismiss the application of the petitioner. It is also settled principle of law that relationship of counsel and client cannot come to an end except in compliance of necessary provisions of law under Order 3, Rules 3 and 4, C.P.C. There are specific provisions for termination or withdrawal of Vakalatnama and unless the mandatory provision is invoked, Vakalatnama continues to be in force. I am fortified by the following judgments in this regard: Hussain Naseer v. Syed Shamim Yaqub 1989 CLC 2125, Alico Civil Engineers v. Syeda Mushtri Rafiq Ahmad 1980 CLC 466 and Mst.
Qamar Sultana v. Abdul Hussain 1982 CLC 767. It is also settled principle of law that power-of- attorney signed by the party in favour of the Advocate is a contract between the client and his counsel. It is the duty of the party as well as the Advocate to revoke or terminate power-ofattorney through a notice which is admittedly not sent in this case by the petitioner to his original counsel.
Therefore, trial Court was justified to dismiss the application of the petitioner for re-examination who have already been cross-examined by the original counsel as the law laid down in Hussain Naseer v. Syed Shamim Yaqub 1989 CLC 2125. It is also settled principle of law that if there is any negligence or misconduct on the part of Advocate the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to take action against him as the law laid down in Mst. Mahmooda Begum v. Major Malik Muhammad Ishaq 1984 SCMR 890, Mirza Muhammad Saeed v. Shahab Din and others PLD 1983 SC 385 and Pakistan through G.M. v. Messrs Q.M.R. Expert Consultants PLD 1990 SC 800. Power- ofattorney of an Advocate would be deemed to be in force unless either the same is determined with the leave of the Court or counsel dies or proceedings of the suit are concluded as far as the client is concerned. Therefore, power-of-attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of the original counsel remains in the field. As such act of counsel is binding upon the party whom he represents in the Court. The judgment of the learned trial Court is in accordance with law, therefore, I do not find any infirmity and irregularity in the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected stand of the petitioner that he mentioned date in his diary as 26-3-1996 instead of 25-3-1996. Coupled with facts that the petitioner has placed on record diary of his counsel, but his counsel Mr. Zaheer Ahmad Mir and Mian Khalid Habib Elahi, Advocates and their clerk were not present before the learned trial Court on 12-10-1996, therefore, the date mentioned in the diary of his counsel, has no relevancy unless and until the petitioner has to prove the same with cogent reasons that he noted the date 26-3-1996 instead of 25-3-1996, but the petitioner failed to bring on record sufficient material to substantiate his plea except produces diary of his counsel.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, the petitioner has alternative remedy to proceed against his counsel by filing an application for misconduct before the Punjab Bar Council.