CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J. As per available record, Muhammad Saleem Sadiq, respondent No. 1 instituted suit for specific performance of agreements to sell dated 20.09.2012 and 31.12.2012 against 15 defendants including the petitioners/ defendants Nos.3 and 4. On behalf of most of the defendants including the petitioners and their brothers, Ch. Aslam Javaid, Advocate filed his power of attorney. The suit was fixed on 16.02.2015 to submit written statement before the learned Trial Court, when Khalil Akhtar Khan, defendant No.1 (now deceased represented by his legal heirs) real brother of present petitioners recorded statement apprising that he had appointed Rao Kashif Iqrar, Advocate as new counsel to represent him in further proceedings and previously engaged, Ch. Aslam Javaid, Advocate, would be no more attorney on his part. It was matter of record that new counsel submitted joint wakalatnama on behalf of defendant No.1 as well as present petitioners/defendants Nos.3 and 4 in the Court, but despite having notice that he stood superseded, Ch. Aslam Javaid, Advocate not only submitted joint conceding written statement on behalf defendants Nos.1 to 6 and 8 to 15, rather he simultaneously made statement for the acceptance of application filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction.
However, the learned Trial Court without making any decision on the said application further adjourned the case to 26.02.2015 for submission of written statement on behalf of defendant No. 1.
On the said date, the present petitioners tabled application for cancellation of conceding written statement made at their end by their counsel, who had already been superseded, but the learned Trial Court while observing that there was no new power of attorney of any other counsel submitted on behalf of the petitioners, dismissed the said application on 14.02.2017, which further sustained by the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing Civil Revision of the petitioners through order dated 03.08.2019, therefore, this petition was preferred.
2. Arguments heard.
3. Having consulted record, especially the proceedings recorded on 16.02.2015, it is observed that on said day not only defendant No.1 apprised the learned Civil Court for the appointment of new counsel, but also tendered his request for withdrawal of appointment of earlier counsel, Ch. Aslam Javaid by submitting fresh power of attorney of new counsel, namely, Rao. Kashif Iqrar, Advocate, which was jointly executed by defendant No.1 as well the petitioners/defendants Nos.3 and 4 and the said fact was duly recorded in the proceedings of the said date as under:- This happened in first phase of the proceedings of the day and in second part of the proceedings initiated on the same day, Ch. Aslam Javaid, Advocate, whose power of attorney stood already specifically withdrawn by defendant No.1 and also superseded by the petitioners not only submitted conceding written statement on their behalf as well as other defendants, rather he also recorded statement qua acceptance of application for grant of temporary injunction. The haste on the part of Ch. Aslam Javaid, Advocate in filing joint written statement despite that his authority to the extent, of defendant No.1 had specifically been withdrawn and petitioners superseded him as well by engaging new counsel, speaks volume on his conduct towards proceedings of the suit. At least he should have omitted/deleted name of defendant No.1, who already withdrew his power of attorney, but filing of joint written statement including him as well leans support to the stance of present petitioners that by using their signatures made available to the said advocate, he filed the written statement without their instructions. The prompt filing of application qua discarding of the written statement on behalf of present petitioners is again a supporting factor and could not be summarily declined.
4. As a corollary of the above discussion, the impugned orders are patently bad for misreading/non-reading of the aforesaid material fact, which are set aside by allowing this writ petition.
Since main suit could not be straightaway decided on the basis of alleged conceding written statement, which even to the extent of defendant No. 1 had not only been discarded, rather on his behalf contesting written statement also submitted and regular trial is necessarily to follow. In such panorama, it is felt appropriate for the ends of justice that petitioners will submit another written statement before the learned Trial Court, who after receiving it will frame an additional issue qua genuineness, veracity or competency of earlier conceding written statement so as to decide its fate and what would be its effect, will also be resolved at the time of final adjudication of the lis after requiring evidence of the parties in pros and cons.