' Inayat Jan respondent No,1/plaintiff filed suit against Nasib Khan (petitioner) and Muhammad Yousaf (respondent No,2) in the Court of learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi Samarbagh for possession through preemption of property mentioned in the heading of the plaint. Perpetual injunction was also sought in the plaint. The said suit was resisted by the retitioner/defendants by filing written statement. The learned trial Court after framing issues, recording pro and contra evidence of the parties decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff on payment of Rs,97,500 vide judgment and decree dated 8-2-2001. He was directed to deposit the remaining pre-emption amount within two weeks.
Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment and decree Nasib Khan filed Appeal No,8 /13 of 2001 in the Court of learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi Dir at Timargara, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18-6-2002. Being not satisfied with the judgments and decrees of the Courts below petitioner has filed the revision petition in hand.
2. Sh. Wazir Muhammad Advocate, the learned counsel representing the petitioner argued that the suit was filed through attorney namely Ihsanullah, but no power of attorney was annexed with the plaint. Although power of attorney Exh.P.W.1/1 was later on placed on A record but the same is dated 18-11-1999 and on the date when the Talbe-Muwathibat was made, the said attorney was not authorized to raise such Tabs.
3. It was also argued that the power of attorney Exh.P.W.1/1 was not admissible because it had been executed on plain paper and was not even attested by the authorised officer of the Embassy of Pakistan at Saudi Arabia nor the same was properly stamped. Moreover, no power had been given to the attorney, as mentioned above, to make Talb-eMuwathibat or Talb-e-Ishhad, therefore, the suit filed by him was not maintainable.
4. It was also argued that the plaintiff could succeed on the strength of his own case and could not rely upon the weaknesses of the defence.
5. On the other hand Qazi Zakiuddin the learned counsel representing the respondents argued that Inayat Khan was in Saudi Arabia, therefore, he had authorised Ihsanullah who as his agent had raised Talbs. The power of attorney Exh.P.W.1/1 was duly attested by the Pakistan Embassy at Saudi Arabia therefore, was admissible in evidence.
4. It was also argued that there were concurrent findings of the facts recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. No misleading/non-reading was pointed out, hence the same need no interference.
5. It was also argued that sale-deed dated 18-9-1999 Exh.D.W.1/1 was concealed by the petitioner/defendant. It was neither annexed with the plaint nor with the list of witnesses. For the first time it was produced when the statement of the petitioner was being recorded. The Courts below had properly appreciated the factual as well as legal position.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The only point urged in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the special power of attorney Exh.P.W.1/1 not admissible and that the attorney had not been authorised by the principal to raise the Talbs. The perusal of special power of attorney Exh.P.W.1/1 shows that the same has been duly attested by Pakistan Embassy at Saudi Arabia, therefore, the same was admissible. So far as the powers conferred upon the attorney by the principal are concerned, the perusal of the said power of attorney shows that Ihsanullah was not specifically authorised to raise Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. The power to raise Talb-e-Khusumat is very much available in the power of attorney. Ihsanullah was examined as P.W.1. He stated that having come to know about the sale, in capacity of attorney of Inayat Jan he raised Talb-e-Muwathibat in presence of Said Zaman Jan, Ali Muhammad, Maulvi Shamsul Wahab, Saeedullah, Hazrat Sahib Jan and Attaullah. Thereafter, on 27-11-1998 being attorney he sent notice of Talb-e-Ishhad to petitioner/defendant. Since no specific powers in the power of attorney Exh.P.W.1/1 had been given by Inayat Jan, the principal to Ihsanullah the attorney, therefore, Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e- Ishhad made by him were without any lawful authority. It is by now settled law that power of attorney must be construed strictly. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following reported cases:--
(i) Muhammad Mehraban v. Sadaruddin 1995 CLC 1541
(ii) Muhammad Aslam and another v. Mst. Inayat Bibi and 4 others 1995 CLC 1572
(iii) Murid Hussain v. Muhammad Sharif through L.Rs, 1996 CLC 161 and
(iv) Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Usman Sons PLD 1969 Karachi 123 ' The Courts below have failed to appreciate this legal aspect of the case. Keeping in view the above discussion I allow the revision petition in hand, set aside the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below and dismiss the suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs with no orders as to costs.