' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 6-7-1986 Ahmad Din, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5 (hereinafter to be referred to as plaintiff) filed a suit against Sharif Ahmed predecessor- ininterest of respondents Nos.6 to 10 and Mst. Surraya Begum wife of said Sharif Ahmad and the petitioner. In the plaint it was stated that the suit house mentioned in the plaint was transferred to the plaintiff and one Muhammad Ibrahim by the Settlement Department. He was in possession of the ground floor whereas Ibrahim was in possession of the first floor. Muhammad Ibrahim filed a suit for separate possession by partition against him Which was dismissed on 16-7-1965 by the learned trial Court. Muhammad Ibrahim filed a first appeal which was allowed on 25-1-1967 and a preliminary decree was passed. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. A final decree was passed by the trial Court on 25-6-1968. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 12-12-1968. He intended to file a second appeal in this Court. He was employed with the said Sharif Ahmad who was also a resident of the same Mohallah. He offered assistance in the, matter of filing of the second appeal and to persue the record. He asked the plaintiff to execute a power of attorney for the said purpose. He accordingly decided to do so.
Sharif Ahmad brought a document which, was already scribed and without reading out or making him to understand the contents his signatures were obtained. This document was written on 6-6- 1969 and registered on 7-1-1969. However, through fraud the said Sharif Ahmad got incorporated the power to alienate in the said document. The second appeal was filed which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13-11-1983. The plaintiff filed an application for readmission which was dismissed on 5-11-1984. C.P.L.A. No,23 of 1985 is pending and stay order has been issued by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. In April, 1986 the petitioner who also is a resident of the same Mohallah, started giving out that he has purchased the ground floor of the house and he is waiting only for the vacation of stay order whereafter he will take over the possession. The plaintiff made inquiries and obtained copy of the said power of attorney and the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner. He also under the instructions of a scribe got executed and registered a cancellation deed on 24-4-1986. He insisted that he had executed the power of attorney only for the purpose of the said second appeal. It turned out that acting under the said power of attorney Sharif Ahmad proceeded to sell the house in favour of his wife (deceased defendant No,2) vide registered sale- deed dated 27-5-1981 and the said wife proceeded to sell the house to the petitioner vide registered sale-deed, dated 8-11-1984. Both the sale-deeds were stated to be without lawful authority. A declaration was accordingly sought. All the said defendants filed a joint written statement. Their case was that in fact the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Sharif Ahmad to sell the house to him and Sharif Ahmad was to conduct further litigation at his own costs and risk and if he succceded he will be authorized to keep the property himself or to dispose of the same. A sum of Rs,7,000 was paid by way of consideration. The petitioner also claimed to be a bona fide purchaser without notice while filing the written statement along with the L.Rs, of Sharif Ahmad. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 17-1-1995. A learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad allowed the first appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreed the suit on 9-2-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the execution of the power of attorney having been admitted, the non-production of the same and formal proof of the same was not required.
According to him the authority was coupled with interest and as such the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file the suit after having admittedly he executed document.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and decree with the contention that the plaintiffs having categorically denied conferring the power of alienation and further that the document was got signed without reading out the same to him, it became incumbent upon the petitioner to produce the said document, to confront the plaintiffs with the same and further to prove it. He further contends that no evidence of consideration creating the alleged interest is there.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have reproduced in some detail the respective pleadings of the parties above. Ahmad Din himself appeared in the witness-box as P.W.1 to state that he had given the power of attorney only for pursuing the case in the High Court. He stated that he is blind and illiterate and that he had never authorized D Sharif Ahmad to sell his property. As would be evident from the contention noted above admittedly the original power of attorney was not produced and consequently Ahmad Din was never confronted with the same. It was not even suggested to him that he had agreed to sell the house to Sharif Ahmad and had received Rs,7,000 by way of consideration. All the D. Ws. Stated that the agreement as well as receipt for consideration was in writing but no such writing was produced or confronted to the said Ahmad Din.
5. On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever was lcd to the effect that Ahmad Din executed the power of attorney containing the power to alienate and that power of attorney was read over to him and he thumb-marked the same after understanding its contents. No reason is forthcoming as to why the agreement and the receipts which were alleged to have been executed by Ahmad Din deceased plaintiff were not produced and proved.
6. So far as the plea of bona fide purchaser is concerned, nothing turns on the same. Admittedly the petitioner was a resident of the same Mohallah. He has admitted the pendency of the said litigation. He has not even pleaded that he had approached Ahmad Din before purchasing the land from the wife of Sharif Ahmad.
7. Apart from the fact that this is a case of no evidence, what to speak of any evidence. There is not even a plea that Sharif Ahmad consulted the plaintiffs before proceeding to transfer his property to his wife. It is by now well-settled that where an attorney intends to transfer the property of his principal to his close relative he has to consult him. Thus, from whatever angle the matter is seen, no ground stands made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge within the ambit of section 115, C.P.C. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but the parties are left to bear this own costs.