' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, ACTG. C.J.---This petition for leave toappeal is directed against the judgment, dated 15-7-2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi through which Revision Petition against concurrent findings of two Courts below has been dismissed.
2. Plot in dispute was allotted to petitioner by the CDA. The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with respondent No,1. Since the ownership of the plot could not be transferred in favour of respondent No,1 without the permission of CDA, therefore, in order to safeguard his interest, respondent No,1 got executed a general power of attorney in his favour from petitioner to get document of transfer in his favour from CDA. The petitioner received the entire consideration amount at the time of execution of said agreement of sale.
3. The CDA on coming to know that the petitioner had struck bargain for the transfer of plot without its prior permission, therefore, considering the same being violative of the relevant rules cancelled the allotment itself.
4. The respondent No,1 had also filed suits for specific performance of said agreement but subsequently withdrew the same.
5. Petitioner made an application to the CDA for restoration of the plot in his name. Petitioner was intimated by the CDA with reference to the said application that it had been decided to restore the allotment of plot but he had to deposit the revised price of plot, which was Rs,33,600.
6. The petitioner on coming to know that CDA was intending to issue document of title of the plot in favour of respondent No,1 on the basis of said power of attorney filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain CDA from issuing the document of title of plot in his name, which was dismissed by the trial Court through judgment, dated 29-7-1993. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by theFirst Appellate Court through judgment, dated 25-1-1999. Civil Revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench through the impugned judgment, dated 25-7-2001, against which leave is sought.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner maintained that principle of estopple was not applicable to the case of petitioner in view of the law laid down by this Court. If a person had committed an act in ignorance of his rights and legal position, he was not bound by the same. Her argument was that on cancellation of allotment of plot from the name of the petitioner, all rights and obligations arising from general power of attorney came to an end and could not be revived on the revival thereof.
8. We are afraid the argument is plainly unsound apart from being against law. It was a case where the petitioner knowing well that permission of CDA was required before transferring the plot to any other person, entered into an agreement of sale, who authorized respondent No,1 to get the document of title from CDA as his attorney in his own name. Though allotment was cancelled but on its restoration the rights and obligation arising from the said agreement of sale in favour of respondent No,1 and the general power of attorney which was executed in lieu of consideration, which was rightly held to be irrevocable, stood also revived.
9. If the CDA had acknowledged the rights of respondent No,1 and was of the view to grant him permission to get document of title-of plot in his own name, the petitioner could not object to it. It is not a case of estopple in the strict sense but enforcement and acknowledgement of right of respondent No,1 under the said power of attorney by the transferring authority i.e, CDA, therefore, the petitioner had no right to get any decree for permanent injunction against CDA.
10. Respondent No,1; who appeared in person, has brought on record a copy of order, dated 5-12- 2001 through which he has been A informed that the CDA had regularized the allotment of plot in his name on charging revised price of Rs,33,600. Since owner of the property i.e, CDA has acknowledged the rights of respondent No,1 conferred upon him by petitioner himself, therefore, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should 'object to the same, who had received the entire amount of consideration as far back as in 1976 from respondent No, l.
' For the foregoing reasons, impugned Judgment of two Courts below do not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no force, which is hereby dismissed and leave refused. '