' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---he petitioner purchased the suit-land vide Mutation No,1109 attested on 10-11-1988. On 29-10-1989 the respondent filed a suit for possession of the suit-land by preemption. He claimed to be a co-sharer in the suit-land and also of land adjacent thereto. I find that there is not a word in the entire plaint which was filed long after 31-7-1986 as to performance of Talbs. The suit was contested by the petitioner. Issues were framed and evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 16-5-1994 on the ground that there is neither any plea nor evidence regarding performance of Talbs. The respondent filed a first appeal.
This appeal came up before a learned ADJ, Wazirabad. On 30-1-1996 one Muhammad Arshad put in appearance and stated that he is the special attorney of the petitioner who is abroad; that he has entered into a compromise agreement with the respondent and in accordance with the said agreement let a decree be passed in favour of the respondent in respect of two Kanals of land for Rs,12,500. The respondent agreed. Vide judgment and decree dated 1-2-1996 the learned ADJ allowed the appeal partly and decreed the suit to the extent of two Kanals of land on payment of Rs,12,500.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said attorney had no authority to enter, into the said compromise. Learned counsel for the respondent says that a reading of the said document according to his view does go to show that the said attorney was duly authorized to enter into the compromise.
3. I have examined the copy of the power of attorney, admittedly, executed by the petitioner in favour of the said Muhammad Arshad which is Exh.D.1. In view of the respective contentions of the parties, I deem it proper to reproduce the relevant contents of the said document which are rather brief:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. To my mind a bare reading of the said document, in the light of the settled legal position that a power of attorney is to be strictly construed, does go to show that Muhammad Arshad had no authority to enter into a compromise and he was given only the authority to pursue the matter in the Court of first instance as well as in the Court of appeal. The last line of the said document reproduced above is to be read in the same context and can by no means be construed to enlarge the scope of the said power of attorney. The impugned judgment and decree are, therefore, not sustainable. I B would have remanded this case for hearing of the appeal but I find that there is no mention that Talbs were made in the manner prescribed. The statement of Munir Ahmad respondent was recorded on 13-6-1992 i.e, long after the promulgation of the several Pre-emption Ordinances and then the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. No attempt was made to prove a valid Talb-iIshhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses in accordance with section 35(2) of the said Act of 1991. A remand will not serve any purpose. The civil revision accordingly is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 1-2-1996 of learned ADJ, Wazirabad, is set aside. No orders as to costs.