Sheikh Hakim Ali, J.--Facts necessary and relevant for the disposal of instant petition are that Muhammad. Shafi Khan, Respondent No, 1 was owner of House No, 28, Street No, 63, Sector F-10/3, Islamabad. He had executed a deed of General Power of Attorney in favour of Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad on 28.03.2002, which was registered on 15.04.2002, in which Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad was conferred power to sell and dispose of the above noted plot/house to any one. On the basis of that Power of Attorney, Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad entered into an agreement to sell with Mst. Shabana Irfan on 20.04.2002, for the sale of the aforementioned plot/house in lieu of Rs, 1,20,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Twenty Lacs) and received earnest money of Rs, 20,00,000/-) (Rupees Twenty Lacs), the detail of which was also mentioned in the above noted agreement to sell. On the basis of that agreement to sell, a suit for specific performance of contract along with issuance of permanent injunction was filed by Mst. Shabana Irfan, the purchaser, against Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad (the agent) as well as the principal, Muhammad Shafi Khan, in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad. The suit was decreed in favour of Mst. Shabana Irfan, upon the assenting statement made by the above noted agent on 15.06.2002 in the Court, in which the details of the payments earlier made by the purchaser, the amount of Rs, 43,00,000/- received by him before the Court and the remaining amount to be paid by the purchaser to the agent were stated. But on 3.07.2002, Muhammad Shafi Khan, executed a deed canceling the aforementioned General Power of Attorney of his agent, namely, Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad. Upon the execution of cancellation deed, a suit for declaration was also filed by Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad against Muhammad Shafi Khan on 2.11.2002, in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, in which he had challenged the legality and validity of cancellation deed of General Power of Attorney dated 3.07.2002, which was still pending. On the other hand, Muhammad Shafi Khan filed a petition under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. before the learned trial Court at Islamabad on 3.07.2002, which was dismissed on 4.06.2003. Aggrieved by the aforementioned dismissal order, C.R. No, 316 of 2003, was filed by Muhammad Shafi Kha a before the Lahore High Court, at Rawalpindi Bench, which was afterward transferred to Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, upon its birth. A learned Judge of the Islamabad High Court accepted the civil revision on 30.05.2008, and by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, remanded the case to the learned trial Court, for framing of issues, grant of opportunity to produce the evidence and then to decide the petition under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. Mst. Shabana Irfan, the decree-holder, feeling grief with the above noted judgment of the High Court, has filed the instant civil petition.
2. Petitioner's learned counsel submits that Mst. Shabana Irfan, petitioner was bonafide purchaser for value of the property in dispute. She had paid Rs, 20,00,000/- lacs (twenty lacs) as advance money at the time of execution of agreement to sell dated 20.04.2002. The execution of deed of General Power of Attorney, and the agreement to sell, were not denied by Muhammad Shafi Khan, respondent, specifically in the petition filed under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. The cancellation of General Power of Attorney was also executed on 3.07.2002, when the decree in favour of petitioner had already been passed from the Civil Court on 15.06.2002. Therefore, the petition under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. was not competent and there was no need to frame issues and to re-decide the application after production of any evidence, because all these were admitted facts between the parties which had required no further framing of issues and eliciting of evidence, for the decision of the petition under Section 12 (2) of the C.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for Muhammad Shafi Khan submits that the impugned judgment/order of the learned High Court was correctly passed. The agreement to sell dated 20.04.2002 was executed in consequence to the other agreement to sell dated 2.04.2002 and the General Power of Attorney executed between the principal and the agent. As the impugned agreement to sell was the result of misrepresentation, therefore, no decree could be got passed by the agent in favour of the purchaser. It is further submitted that between the principal and the agent, it was settled that matter would be resolved _ through negotiation. But the suit was filed by Respondent No, 1, which was got decreed with the connivance of the agent. He has also placed reliance upon judgment reported in PLD 1985 SC 341 (Fida Muhammad Vs. Pir Muhammad Khan (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others), to contend that the General Power Attorney executed in favour of Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad had not empowered him to sell out the property of Muhammad Shafi Khan to any one without the written consent of the principal. Therefore, the controversy had arisen in relation to the factual aspect of the case, which could only be decided by the learned trial Court, after framing of issues and grant of opportunity to produce the evidence.
4. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is an admitted fact that Muhammad Shafi Khan had executed the General Power of Attorney deed dated 28.03.2002, in favour of Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad, which was got registered by him on 15.04.2002. The contents of aforementioned deed of General Power of Attorney are unambiguous, which contain the power to sell the plot/house in dispute. It is noteworthy that the aforementioned General Power of Attorney was exclusively executed with regard to this sole property in dispute and was not of general in nature, or having within its ambit more or all other properties of the principal i,e, Muhammad Shafi Khan. Clause 5 of deed of General Power of Attorney had granted the power to the agent, to sell, transfer, convey, mutate, to dispose of the said plot/house and or the building thereon. In clause 10, the power to compromise, compound or withdraw cases, to confess judgments and to refer cases to arbitration was also entered. Therefore, this deed of General Power of Attorney having exclusively been executed with regard to a specific property in dispute with all powers granting to the agent, to alienate the property in dispute cannot be considered and held to be vague and ambiguous or having conferred powers of general nature necessitating further instructions, or documentation for disposition of the property in dispute. In these circumstances, the judgment reported in PLD 1985 SC 341 (Fida Muhammad Vs. Pir Muhammad Khan (Deceased) through Legal Heirs and others) referred to above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. It has also transpired that the execution of General Power of Attorney deed by the principal, in favour of his agent and the agreement to sell by agent in favour of purchaser have not been refuted by Respondent No, 1, the principal. The cancellation of the deed on 3.07.2002 is also another fact confirming the execution of deed of General Power of Attorney in favour of agent. Commission of fraud or forgery in execution of that document was not asserted in the petition. Resultantly, the acts performed and the transaction entered by such an agent with a third party cannot be undone, particularly when no fraud, misrepresentation having been played in the sale transaction, made or exercised by the parties to the suit was pleaded in relation to the suit proceedings, as envisaged by Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. Consequently, A the decree passed upon a valid power of attorney of the agent in a suit proceeding, wherein no fraud or misrepresentation was involved, alleged or pleaded, could not be set aside. The respondent, the principal, cannot be permitted in such case to get such decree annulled and to reopen the dispute to make a futile effort to reopen a settled matter to unsettle it. The real controversy has arisen between the principal and the agent which cannot affect the result of the suit, as it has got no impact upon the transaction entered into between the purchaser and the agent.
6. There is another aspect of the case. There was no mention in the deed of General Power of Attorney as well as in the agreement to sell executed in between Mst. Shabana Irfan and the Agent of Muhammad Shafi Khan that the sale of disputed property could be made when the agent was to complete and fulfill the promise if any with the principal. No such inkling was even given or found in the above noted deeds, therefore, the transaction between Mst. Shabana Irfan and Muhammad Shafi Khan through Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad, the agent of Muhammad Shafi Khan, could not be disturbed or challenged by Muhammad Shafi Khan through a petition under Section 12 (2) of the C.P.C. If Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad, the agent, had failed to perform his promise with the principal if any, it was a different subject matter of separate transaction, settled between Muhammad Shafi Khan and the aforesaid agent, which could not have any repercussion upon the transaction entered into between Mst. Shabana Irfan and Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad. If any fraud was allegedly committed by Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad with Muhammad Shafi Khan, it was a matter between the agent and the principal, for which the principal could institute a suit in a civil Court, proceed against the delinquent through criminal proceedings and agitate his grievance therein.
Respondent No, 1, having other separate remedies against Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad, his agent, he could not be allowed to affect the transaction of Mst. Shabana Irfan, who had paid a huge sum to his agent, according to the contents of agreement to sell, and the statement made by aforementioned Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad, before the learned Civil Court, in the suit for specific performance of contract, believing the power of attorney, .a valid and legal document, the execution of which was not denied by the principal. Therefore, the separate cause of action, available to Muhammad Shafi Khan, the principal, separate remedies can be availed of by Muhammad Shafi Khan, which are available and open to him in law.
7. Needless to add that petition under Section 12 (2) of the C.P.C. can be decided summarily by the learned Court, which has passed the final judgment, decree or order in dispute, when there are admitted facts, documents between the parties. There is no need to prolong the litigation, when the case ex-facie appears to have not been filed in a wrong jurisdiction, and when fraud or misrepresentation was not involved therein the case or in the transaction. The matter and dispute in between the principal and the agent cannot affect the third party, as the aforementioned third party is not privy to the alleged fraud, misstatement, misrepresentation or wrong doing of the agent, if any committed by the agent with his principal.
8. Accordingly, we convert this civil petition into appeal, accept it, by setting aside the impugned judgment/order of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad and restore that of the order dated 4.06.2008 of the learned trial Court. It is further clarified that this judgment shall not be creative of any bar or impediment in the way of Muhammad Shafi Khan to initiate or commence any proceedings, which are permitted by law to him against his agent, namely, Yezdiar Nomi Kaikobad.