' SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. --- Facts necessary for disposal of the instant Constitutional petition are as such that petitioner instituted a suit for possession through declaration alongwith permanent injunction against the respondents No, 1 to 5 and Province of Punjab by pleading that Muhammad Siddique, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No, 1 to 5, declared the petitioner as owner of 1/3rd of the suit land through his will deed/Wasiyatnama No, 773, dated 18.04,1996 and that will- deed was entrusted to his real sister Mst. Habib Ashraf and her husband Muhammad Ashraf by the deceased Muhammad Siddique, who bound them that they would pay 1/3rd of total amount of said property to the petitioner or the petitioner would be considered as owner of 1/3rd property.
Muhammad Siddique died on 22.12.2004, that will-deed was opened by his relatives after his death and nobody challenged the said deed; hence, the suit. The respondents No, 1 to 5 were summoned but none appeared on their behalf, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte while the Province of Punjab was deleted being unnecessary party. After recording ex parte evidence, when the suit was fixed for final arguments on 24.04.2015, Ch. Shabbir Hussain Khan, Advocate (without any power-of-attorney or authorization) filed an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. On behalf of the respondent No, 6 (Muhammad Yaseen), which was resisted by the petitioner with the specific objection that the application was incompetent due to non-embellishing of power-of- attorney. The learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 08.07.2015 allowed application filed on behalf of the respondent No, 6; against which a civil revision was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 02.03.2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order and judgment are illegal, unjust, void, unlawful, arbitrary, against facts and law as well as against the principle of natural justice. Argues that the respondent No, 6 filed application under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., through counsel, without his Wakalatnama, without signatures and thumb impression of the respondent No, 6 on the application as well as affidavit and no document was attached with the said application but the learned Courts below ignored all these facts and passed the impugned order and judgment. Submits that learned Addl. District Judge ignored the fact that the suit instituted by the respondent No, 6 for specific performance was dismissed on 18.09.2015 and it is also noteworthy that the application under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. And suit for specific performance were filed on the same date i.e, 24.04.2015, which shows mala fide on the part of the respondent No, 6 as in the application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. True facts were not mentioned. Moreover, Muhammad Siddique died on 22.12.2004 while the alleged suit for specific performance was filed on 24.04.2015, which is nothing but an attempt to harm the rights of the petitioner, even the said suit was instituted without any power-of-attorney, signature or thumb impression on the plaint or affidavit of the respondent No, 6 but the learned Trial Court not only entertained the suit but also granted temporary injunction. Maintains that the learned Courts below have failed to consider and appreciate the provisions of Order Ill, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. Which provides that no pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment. Contends that the impugned order and judgment are result of non- reading and misreading of record. Adds that both the learned Courts below failed to exercise vested jurisdiction and exercised that jurisdiction which was not vested in them; therefore, by committing material illegalities and irregularities, the impugned order and judgment have been passed, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, by allowing the Constitutional petition in hand, the impugned order and judgment may be set aside and application filed by the respondent No, 6 under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. May be dismissed. Relies on Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government v. Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13, Abdul Hameed Khan v.
Mrs. Saeeda Khalid Kamal Khan and others PLD 2004 Karachi 17 and Muhammad Ali and 21 others v. Abdul Jalil 2015 CLC 1315-Balochistan.
3. Contrarily, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No, 6 has argued that the relationship inter se the counsel and client is that of Principal and Agent; if an agent acted on behalf of the principal, even though he was not authorized in the prescribed manner for acting as such at the relevant time, principal was vested with the authority to ratify the act of his agent with retrospective effect; therefore, the learned Courts below have exercised jurisdiction vested in them legally and there is no jurisdictional defect in the impugned order and judgment, calling for interference by this Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction; therefore, the instant constitution petition merits dismissal. Relies on Khayam Films and another v. Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. 1982 CLC 1275-Lahore, Said Muhammad and others v. M. Sardar and others PLD 1999 Supreme Court 532, Mst.
Sardar Begum v. Muhammad Anwar Shah and others 1993 SCMR 363, Messrs Adamjee Construction Company Ltd. Through Chief Executive v. Government of Punjab through Director- General, Punjab Sports Board, National Hockey Stadium, Lahore 1999 MLD 2202-Lahore and Fazal- ur-Rehman and 2 others v. Begum Sughra Haque 2000 MLD 562-Lahore.
4. Heard.
5. Considering the prevailing trend in our society germane to negating delegation of powers upon any person especially the lawyers by executing power-of-attorney to represent any litigant public before a legal forum, which culminates in filing of applications under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. By alleging commission of fraud and misrepresentation, it is mandated rather need of the time that for filing or instituting any application or suit or for putting-forth any claim, an advocate or counsel should have a duly executed power-of-attorney in his favour so as to represent any litigant before any legal forum, as enunciated in Part-A, Chapter 16, Volume-I of High Court Rules and Order, which runs:- `Pleading and acting by pleaders.-- Whereas by Order I, rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure, no pleader shall 'act, for any person in any Court unless he has been appointed by an instrument in writing, nor shall any pleader, who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only, plead on behalf of any person unless he has filed in Court a memorandum-of-appearance or unless he has been engaged by another pleader duly appointed, and no such pleader can be recognized in the absence of a written authority or memorandum-of-appearance as aforesaid as empowered to plead or act for any person in any proceeding governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, and it is expedient to provide for ascertaining that every such pleader is duly authorized to appear, plead or act in any such proceeding before subordinate Courts, the following instructions have been issued by the High Court:-
(1) Power-of-attorney to act to be executed by the principal.-- Every appointment of a pleader to act shall contain in full the name of the person, or where there are more than one, of every person who thereby appoints the pleader to act on his behalf, and shall be executed by every such person.
(2) Proof required when power-of-attorney not executed by the principal.-- When such appointment or power is not executed by the principal himself, but by some person claiming to appoint or give authority on his behalf, the pleader will not be recognized by the Court without proof that such person was duly authorized by the principal to execute such appointment or power.
(3) Power-of-attorney or memorandum of appearance in cross appeals.-- In cross-appeals a pleader who has already filed a power-of-attorney or memorandum-ofappearance for the appellant shall not be required for his client as respondent in the cross-appeal.'
' The above scenario makes it clear that presentation of a written instrument in the shape of power-of-attorney duly executed by a person who has engaged such counsel or advocate is sine qua non, as stated above, in order to curb or curtail any ambiguity or element of fraud and misrepresentation. Volume V, Chapter 6, Part-B of the High Court Rules and Orders further ornate this issue. Moreover, an unauthorized person cannot address a Court as provided under Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads:---
119. Unauthorized persons not to address Court.-- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to authorize any person on behalf of another to address the Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, or to examine witnesses, except where the Court shall have in the exercise of the power conferred by its charter authorized him so to do, or to interfere with the power of the High Court to make rules concerning advocates, vakils and attorneys.'
' The excerpts of the High Court Rules & Orders and Section 119 of the C.P.C. Are sufficient to conclude that unless and until a person/Advocate is duly authorized by execution of a power-of- attorney, he/she cannot represent a client or litigant before any Court of law; either he/she has to file a power-of-attorney, delegating powers of representation or memorandum-of appearance, that too, with undertaking to present power-of-attorney later on and when the rival party objects, it is mandatory and obligatory to prove that such power-of-attorney is executed by the assignee in favour of such Advocate/counsel, but in the present case, at the time of filing application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. Neither memorandum of appearance nor power-of-attorney was submitted but it was averred that the assignee/respondent No, 6 was abroad and on his arrival in the country, he would sign the application and affidavit as well as execute power-of-attorney; if such a practice is allowed to prevail, it will not only create an anomalous situation but also open a door for filing of applications under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. By alleging commission of fraud and misrepresentation; therefore, such practice cannot be endorsed or permitted to carry the day mere on the assumption and presumption that it is an irregularity and curable, especially in the present case, uptill now, no exertion has been made by the respondent No, 6 to file power-of- attorney or to appear before the Court of competent jurisdiction in person or through a special attorney or general attorney for making his better statement in order to ratify the acts done by his counsel, retrospectively; therefore. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No,6, which are Khayam Films and another v. Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. 1982 CLC 1275- Lahore, Said Muhammad and others v. M. Sardar and others PLD 199 Supreme Court 532, Mst.
Sardar Begum v. Muhammad Anwar Shah and others 1993 SCMR 363, Messrs Adamjee Construction Company Ltd. Through Chief Executive v. Government of Punjab through Director- General, Punjab Sports Board, National Hockey Stadium, Lahore 1999 MLD 2202-Lahore and Fazal- Ur-Rehman and 2 others v. Begum Sughra Haque 2000 MLD 562-Lahore, cannot provide sustenance to the stance of the respondent No, 6 to stand on. Moreover, it is an era of Information Technology and the world has become a Global Village, distance has shortened, anything can easily be transported or communicated or conveyed to some other place in minutes by e-mail, fax or other sources of such like nature; but, there is nothing, as hinted above, showing any such exertion, made by the respondent No, 6, sending power-of-attorney duly attested by the Consulate/Embassy cf Pakistan, appointing his counsel/Advocate, which demonstrate something colQurful only to create hurdle in the way of the petitioner.
6. Apart from the above, Order Ill, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 elaborates enough to deal with all possible situations but basic requirement of appointment of pleader or advocate shall always be the same. Appointment of pleader shall be writing and duly signed by a person(s) who appoints the pleader and this instrument must be before the Court. For ready reference said Order is reproduced infra:--- `4. Appointment of pleader.-- (1) No pleader shall act for any person in ay Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power-of- attorney to make such appointment.
(2) Every such appointment shall be filed in Court and shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client.
(3).
(4)..
(5)No pleader who has been engaged for the purpose of pleading only shall plead on behalf of any party, unless he has filed in Court a memorandum of appearance signed by himself and stating:---
(a) the names of the parties to the suit,
(b) the name of the party for whom he appearance, and
(c) the name of the person by whom he is authorized to appear. Provided that nothing in this sub- rule shall apply to any pleaders engaged to plead on behalf of any party by any other pleader who has been duly appointed to act in Court on behalf of such party.'
' In this regard safer reliance can be placed in the cases of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government v.
Habibullah Lone PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 13, Abdul Hameed Khan v. Mrs. Saeeda Khalid Kamal Khan and others PLD 2004 Karachi 17 and Muhammad Ali and 2.1 others v. Abdul Jalil 2015 CLC 1315- Balochistan.
7. The above discussion ends with the observation that when the Advocate who filed application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. On behalf of the respondent No, 6 was neither duly authorized through a written instrument i.e, power-of-attorney nor he filed any memorandum-ofappearance with the undertaking of production of power-of-attorney, the application was not entertainable and incompetent to proceed on; therefore, the learned Courts below, without considering and keeping in view this aspect, passed the impugned order and judgment while travelling beyond jurisdiction vested in them by law; as such, the impugned order and judgment cannot, be allowed to remain in field further.
8. When the basic order passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal and has been passed without jurisdiction, the judgment passed while "exercising revisional jurisdiction can also be interfered with in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Moreover, pursuant to the above discussion, it can safely be held that the learned revisional Court has failed to interpret law on the subject in a true perspective while exercising jurisdiction vested in it by law at the time of passing the impugned judgment, which cannot be allowed to hold field further and this Court in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction, when the revisional order does not qualify the test of Article 4 of the Constitution and suffers from a patent error, of fact, such as non-reading/misreading of the facts on the record or has committed a grave illegality in applying the correct law, such as the error of misapplication and non-application of correct law, can make interference. Reliance in this regard is placed on Qamar-ud-Din v. Muhammad Din and others PLD 2001 Supreme Court 518, Muhammad Ashraf Butt and others v. Muhammad Asif Bhatti and others PLD 2011 Supreme Court 905 and Muhammad Anwar and others v.. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others PLD 2013 Supreme Court 255, wherein. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held:--- ' thus it is obvious and clear that no Court in the country has the jurisdiction to decide about the rights of the parties wrongly and in violation of the law, and the revisional Court is no exception to this rule. This is the mandate of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and we are not persuaded if there is any specific bar on the learned High Courts, that while exercising its authority in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, no interference can be made in the revisional orders. It should in fact be left to the High Courts to decide in which cases the interference is warranted, as it is the matter about the regulation of High Courts jurisdiction, obviously on the touchstone of the grounds laid down and the parameters set forth in Article 199 of the Constitution. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the High Court cannot interfere in the revisional orders has no force, which is hereby discarded.'
' Even in Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447, it was held:- ' When the Tribunal goes wrong in law, it goes outside the jurisdiction conferred on it because the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide rightly but not the jurisdiction to decide wrongly.
Accordingly, when the tribunal makes an error of law in deciding the matter before it, it goes outside its jurisdiction and, therefore, a determination of the Tribunal which is shown to be erroneous on a point of law can be quashed under the writ jurisdiction on the ground that it is in excess of its jurisdiction.'
9. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, while placing reliance on the judgments supra, the instant constitutional petition stands allowed, impugned order and judgment passed by the learned Courts below are set aside, consequent whereof the application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the respondent No, 6 stands dismissed. No order as to the costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.