1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 24-4-2000 of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Civil Revision No,86 of 1998 filed by the respondents was accepted by setting aside the judgment dated 4-11-1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, and restoring the decree, dated 2-6-1997 of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Muzaffargarh.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that a declaratory suit was filed on 13- 5-1991 by the respondents taking exception to Fard Badar and Mutation No,242 to the extent of land measuring 3 Kanals, 17 Marlas. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned Civil Judge through his judgment, dated 21-11-1995 dismissed the suit. The respondents took exception to the aforesaid judgment by filing an appeal. While the learned First Appellate Court was hearing the same, an exception was also taken to an application given before the learned trial Court qua the compromise effected between the parties. However, said application was dismissed on 19-11-1995. The learned First Appellate Court in the circumstances accepted the appeal,through its judgment, dated 15-4-1996 and remanded the case to the trial Court.
3. ' After the remand, before the learned trial Court after recording of evidence of Abdul Ghani, when the testimony of P.W. Shabbir Ahmed was being recorded, Muhammad Iqbal, one of the legal heirs of Muhammad Rafiq, made an offer that if aforementioned Shabbir were to make a statement on oath that a compromise was effected between the parties, in that eventuality, the suit filed by the respondents be decreed. Malik Ghulam Qadir Mandor, being the Advocate of the parties, endorsed this statement and also signed the order-sheet. The oath, according to the offer, was taken and the suit of the respondents was accordingly decreed on 2-6-1997. The petitioners filed an appeal assailing the above judgment, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, through his judgment, dated 4-11-1997. The respondents then filed aforesaid civil revision before the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench, which has been accepted through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire documents placed on record with his assistance. The only point which has been argued by the learned counsel is, whether Malik Ghulam Qadir Mandor, Advocate had the authority to act for all the legal heirs of Muhammad Rafiq, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. It is reflected from the perusal of the documents appended with this petition that first of all the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners engaged aforesaid learned counsel in a declaratory suit filed by the respondents. After his death an amended plaint was filed and it was he who made a statement in the Court on 21-11-1992 to the effect that the previous written statement submitted on behalf of Muhammad Rafique deceased would be relied on by way of defence by all the legal heirs.
5. Thereafter, on 19-4-1993, he drafted an application for compromise which was rejected on 19-11- 1995 and the suit of the respondents was also dismissed on 21-11-1995. The respondents filed an appeal against this judgment and it was Malik Ghulam Qadir Mandor, Advocate, who represented all the legal heirs. Then he filed a fresh power of attorney duly signed by all of them on 23-1-1996.
6. The appeal filed by the respondents was allowed through judgment dated 15-4-1996 and the case was remitted to the learned trial Court for its decision afresh. During remand proceedings he continued appearing for the legal heirs. However, on 1-7-1996 the present petitioner minus Muhammad Iqbal, another legal heir, submitted another power of attorney of Mr. Ahmed Ali Chohan, Advocate. It cannot be said that by filing the fresh power of attorney the earlier power of attorney issued in favor of Malik Ghulam Qadir Mandor, Advocate stood cancelled. The mere fact that a fresh power of attorney was given to Mr. Ali Ahmed Chohan, Advocate would not automatically cancel the earlier power of attorney issued in favor of Malik Ghulam Qadir Mandor, Advocate who continued appearing in the case. Learned counsel for the petitioners in the circumstances has failed to point out any'illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment whereby the trial Court decreed the suit.
7. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.