' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.--- This revision petition has been preferred against order dated 10-7- 2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Swabi, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for possession by exercising right of pre-emption with regard to 4 Marla house. The suit was resisted by the respondent and after recording pro and contra evidence, the learned trial Court partially decreed the suit vide judgment dated 22-7-2011. The respondent preferred appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Swabi vide judgment dated 22-2-2012 and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court for verification of power of attorney executed by the plaintiff/petitioner and also for summoning of Muhammad Qureshi as CW. Against the remand order dated 22-2-2012, the petitioner preferred Civil Revision No.497 of 2012 which was admitted to regular hearing on 20-7- 2012, but during the pendency of the said revision petition, the learned trial Court concluded the trial by holding the power of attorney as defective, manipulated and tampered one, thus at this time dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 27-9-2012. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred appeal which also met the same fate through impugned judgment dated 10-7-2014, hence the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the learned Courts below had failed to properly appreciate the fact that the petitioner had got superior right of pre-emption besides proved his case through production of required evidence and the suit was wrongly dismissed by the learned Courts below. It was further contended that the suit was wrongly dismissed on the ground that special attorney Waseem Abbas had got no authority to exercise the right of Talbs as required under Pre-emption Law as the Principal Humayun Khan, had consented by a duly sworn affidavit and accepted all the acts valid as has been done by the attorney. It was lastly argued with vehemence that despite of the fact that a Civil Revision bearing No.497-P of 2012 was pending disposal against judgment of remand dated 22-2-2012 before this Court, wherein a status quo order was also passed by this Court, but the learned trial Court despite restrained order of this Court, in haste dismissed the suit through judgment dated 27-9-2012 and the learned appellate Court failed to notice this legal point.
' Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Perusal of record reveals that at the time of exercising Talbs, the plaintiff was out of Country and all the Talbs were exercised by one Waseem Abbas as special attorney. Since the foundation of the case rests upon the authenticity and legality of power of attorney, so the same had rightly been noticed by the learned District Judge, Swabi while hearing appeal and the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court to ascertain as to whether Talbs were performed by the attorney within the scope of authority vested in him and to ascertain its validity by verifying the power of attorney from the concerned Embassy/Consulate. '
5. After remand, the learned trial Court verified the general power of attorney Exh.PW3/1 through Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad. As per report of Consulate General of Pakistan Dubai/UAE, the power of attorney was not found in genuine condition, but found altered and original clause-7 of power of attorney was noticed as tampered/altered. For the convenience Clause-T is reproduced which is as under:--- "To file an appeal revision and review petitions and conduct the same either personally or through a WAKIL and defend any appeal review and review and revision petition filed against me."
' Whereas in the altered one the following sentence was introduced:--- "The attorney has authorized to make Talb-e-Muwathibat, Talbe-Ishhad and Talb-e-Khusomat on my behalf"
The attorney Waseem Abbas was not specifically authorized qua performance of Talbs in respect of suit property in the original. It is very unfortunate that in order to fill the lacuna, the special attorney Waseem Abbas manipulated and tampered with specific clause of power of attorney and inserted a para through which the attorney was authorized to exercise Talbs on behalf of petitioner/pre-emptor.
6. It is well settled by now that if power of attorney not specifically authorize agent to exercise right of Talb-e-Muwathibat or Talb-e-Ishhad but the power of attorney was restricted generally to institute a Civil suit, Talbs exercised by attorney carries no value in eye of law as not made validly under section 13 of Pre-emption Act, 1987.
7. In the case in hand the plaintiff had only delegated general authority to the attorney to conduct or defend cases on his behalf. No authority was vested in the said attorney to exercise the right under section 13 of the Act ibid. Under Provisions of section 14 of the Act, 1987, only validly appointed agent can exercise the right of requisite Talbs on behalf of pre-emptor. Mere holding a General Power of Attorney would not empower attorney to exercise the power of Talbs, rather he would be bound to perform his duties within four corners thereof as against that same would not be termed as valid in eye of law. As all the requirements of performance of Talbs are mandatory and provide foundation for a suit for pre-emption so person exercising such right must be equipped with specific authority as provided under section 14 of the Act, 1987. In the original power of attorney, the agent was not given express power to exercise rights of Talbs, the suit filed on the basis of such Talbs was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court. In view of the special circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the suit vide judgment dated 27-9-2012 and appeal filed was also rightly met the same fate before the learned appellate Court. No illegality or irregularity has been found in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below.
8. So far restraint order passed by this Court on 9-10-2012 in C.M. No.831-P of 2012 in C.R. No.497-P of 2012 is concerned, perusal of order sheet dated 9-10-2012 reveals that notice for a short date was issued to the respondent and in the meanwhile the trial Court was directed not to pass final order, but the learned trial Court before passing of restraint order, on 27-9-2012 dismissed the suit on the basis of available record, as at that time there was no restraint order passed by this Court in the field. So the order passed by this Court dated 9-10-2012 was of no help to the petitioner.
' In view of what has been observed above, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine along with CM No.539-P of 2014.