1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---The plaintiff has filed instant suit with following prayer:--
(a) To declare the Irremovable General Power of Attorney duly registered No, 122 Book IV Sub- Registrar Malir Town, Karachi dated 29-7-2009, MF Roll No, U-60591/6052 photo Registrar Karachi dated 17/09/09, of agriculture land bearing survey No,650 (3 Acres 34 Ghuntas) 689 (1 Acre 38 Ghuntas) 690 (2 Acres 12 Ghuntas) total area measuring 8 Acres 4 Ghuntas including as per share of the plaintiff and Mst. Zubaida Bibi, Gul Hassan, Abdul Rehman, Mst. Gulshan Bibi and Mst. Naz Bibi as well as defendants situated at Deh Thanu Tapu Malir Karachi in the name of plaintiff be intact.
(b) The revocation of General Power of Attorney dated 16-3-2012, vide registration 32, MF Roll No, 2413/7715 dated 30-3-2012, Sub-Registrar Malir Town is illegal ultra vires and abinitio vide annexure "J".
(c) To direct the defendants not to create 3rd party interest in the suit property on the basis of revocation of General Power of Attorney dated 16/03/12, mentioned above.
(d) Any other relief deem fit and proper by this Honourable Court in the circumstances of the case.
(e) The cost of the suit.
2. ' Office has raised objection regarding maintainability of the instant suit in view of provisions contained in sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act.
3. ' Brief facts, as argued by Mr. Muhammad Shafi Rajput, counsel appearing for the plaintiff, are that ten persons including five defendants had executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of plaintiff (on 29th July 2009 in respect of land bearing Survey No, 650 (03-34), 689 (01-38) and 690 (02-12), total measuring 08-04 Acres, situated in Deh Thano, Tapo Malir, Taluka Malir Town, District Karachi. The plaintiff thereafter entered into a transaction of sale with one Muhammad Saleem to whom he sold the said land for a total sale consideration of Rs,30.000 (M), out of which the said Muhammad Saleem- paid to the plaintiff a sum of Rs,10.000 (M), which the plaintiff proportionately distributed amongst the shareholders/owners including these five defendants. It appears that thereafter all the five defendants on 30th March, 2012 revoked the said Power of Attorney by executing Revocation of General Power of Attorney before the concerned Registrar, which led to filing of instant suit, and the plaintiff is seeking cancellation of such revocation deed.
4. ' Counsel for the plaintiff contends that since the Power of Attorney was against consideration therefore it could not have been revoked. He has referred to the provisions of section 206 of the Contract Act to claim notice and further referred to section 208 of the Contract Act in support of his contention that such revocation is ineffective. In order to show how the consideration was paid, learned counsel says that when the plaintiff entered into agreement of sale with said Muhammad Saleem the amount so received by him was distributed amongst the legal heirs by present plaintiff, therefore, it is a valid consideration and bars the defendants from revoking Power of Attorney.
5. ' On the other hand, counsel for the defendant No,1 contends that the Power of Attorney was without consideration and even if it is admitted that the plaintiff had acted on behalf of the defendants while entering into sale agreement and received sale consideration on behalf of the defendants and ultimately distributed the same, still it would not make Power of Attorney for consideration as the plaintiff just has acted as an agent for the defendants.
6. ' I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record.
7. It appears to be an admitted position that no consideration whatsoever against execution of Power of Attorney was passed and the plaintiff even if his case is admitted in toto, acted only as an agent and after entering into sale agreement with said Muhammad Saleem, on behalf of all the ten shareholders, has fulfilled his duties by distributing part of the sale consideration received against alleged sale amongst the co-owners of the property. No doubt in cases where the agent has an interest in the property, subject matter of agency, then such agency of course cannot be revoked to the detriment of the agent's interest or unless it is provided in the contract itself which is not the case in hand as the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of agency and even according to the agent's own case he was authorized to sell the subject matter of the agency i,e, land for distribution of sale proceeds amongst his principal. Though the law specifically provides that unless it is otherwise provided in the contract of agency the principal cannot revoke the agent's authority once it is exercised or even if it is partly exercised. This, of course, is to give sanctity to the transactions entered into by the agent on behalf of the principal and in case if such sanctity would not have been provided then the principal would not respect the transactions entered into by his agent on his behalf and the agent would unnecessarily be exposed to personal risk. This provision, of course, is to bind the principal for the transactions entered into by his agent on his behalf.
8. However, still such revocation would not give a cause of action to the agent to file a suit against the principal to seek a declaration that the revocation of power of attorney is illegal or ultra vires for the simple reason that for filing a suit personal gain or an interest in the subject matter of the suit is necessary in order to provide a cause of action and since the agent has no interest whatsoever in the subject matter of the suit therefore the suit itself is without cause. Further a power of attorney without consideration, of course, can be revoked at any time, but the revocation would not be valid for the transactions already entered into by the agent prior to such revocation and the cause of action to get such transactions specially enforced would only be available to the third party in whose favour such power was exercised or interest was conferred.
9. ' As to the reference made by the learned counsel for plaintiff to the provisions of sections 202 and 206 of the Contract Act, suffice it to observe that in case the Power of Attorney is revoked then the principal would meet losses in case the agent suffer such losses on account of revocation of Power of Attorney without notice but no such case whatsoever has been pleaded. As to provision of section 208, such provision does not bar revocation of Power of Attorney but only safeguard the right of a person who acquire any interest on the basis of such power of attorney.
10. ' In the circumstances, no cause whatsoever has accrued to the plaintiff for filing the instant suit.
11. The plaint consequently is hereby rejected with no order as to cost.
12. Plaint rejected.