One Muhammad Salim S/o Muhammad Munir-Respondent No, 3 filed a suit on 17.5.2007 for specific performanee against Muhammad Saleem Son of Din Muhammad, Muhammad Khalid and Muhammad Boota. (Respondents No, 4 & 5) through his counsel Mr. Abdul Qayyum Bhatti, Advocate on the strength of agreement to sell (1qrarnama') dated 18.9.2002 in respect of the land, fully described in para-1 of the plaint, copy of which is available on record, Respondents No, 4 and 5, claiming bona fide purchasers of the said land, raised objection that the said suit was got filed by Respondent No, 3 in connivance with Muhammad Saleem S/o Din Muhammad now represented by the petitioner Muhammad Manshah, as his alleged attorney/agent vide a special power of attorney executed in his favour on 4.6.2007 (original stands placed on record).
2. One Mansab Ali also, through a general power of attorney registered vide No, 366 dated 17.6.2003 claims to be his agent to pursue the said suit on his behalf. He engaged Mr. Abaidullah Bhatti, Advocate for filing written statement on behalf of said Muhammad Saleem Son of Din Muhammad.
Later Muhammad Manshah also claiming to be the agent of Muhammad Saleem S/o Din Muhammad on the strength of aforesaid special power of attorney, engaged his own counsel and wanted to file written statement on his behalf but vide order dated 21.6.2008 the learned trial Court turned down his request. This order was assailed through a civil revision before the learned Additional District Judge who too did not find favour with the arguments advanced on his behalf and dismissed it with a detailed order passed on 12.1.2009 giving arise to the writ petition in hand.
2-A. Arguments heard and available record perused.
3. As is apparent the controversy arose as to who would represent Muhammad Saleem S/o Din Muhammad before the learned trial Court for Parvi' of suit filed against him and others. In this respect both the learned Courts below very rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he is not a duly authorized agent of said Muhammad Saleem S/o Din Muhammad which observations/findings gather enough support from the fact that the suit under reference was instituted way back on 17.5.2007 and it was for the first time in May, 2008 when the alleged holder of special power of attorney tendered his appearance to defend the suit on behalf of said Muhammad Saleem. The learned trial Court made efforts to procure his personal attendance but for reasons best known to him and his aforesaid general attorney, he did not bother to appear in the Court to own the said agent or disown Mansab Ali, holder of his general power of attorney.
Further, nothing has been placed on record to suggest that the said general power of attorney in favour Mansab Ali had, at any point of time, ever been disowned by Muhammad Saleem S/o Din Muhammad or cancelled or disputed it, meaning thereby that said registered document is still in currency and will remain valid till it is revoked by the principal.
4. Additionally, special power of attorney does not appear to have been properly executed and the same being also un-registered is a worthless document hardly creating any valid authority in favour of the petitioner in as much as it was attested by a Notry Public without proper identification of the said Muhammad Saleem S/o Din Muhammad. On its margin name of one Muhammad Qaisar, Advocate finds mentioned who had to identify him but he did not sign it as a token of his identification. Therefore, the mere, attestation of No try Public will not be safe to be relied upon.
Even the stamp paper was not purchased by said Muhammad Saleem personally; rather one Muhammad Tufail had purchased it on his behalf, apparently without any authority in absence of any supporting material on record.
5. All the above peculiar features of the case makes me to understand that the orders dated 21.6.2008 and 12.1.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge respectively are neither illegal nor arbitrary in nature.
6. Above all, Muhammad Saleem S/o Din Muhammad himself appears to be least interested.
Therefore, in absence of verification and without proper probe Muhammad Manshah, the petitioner cannot be treated as a duly authorized agent of said Muhammad Saleem nor has any vested right, enforceable by law entitling him to file a writ petition of the nature before this Court. Further, the issue of appointment or otherwise of an attorney squarely needs evidence which exercise cannot be taken by this Court in the Constitutional petition in hand. So, therefore, finding no good ground to proceed further, the petition in hand is dismissed in limine.