' This is an application under Order 39, rules 1 and'2, C. P. C. Filed by the plaintiffs praying that defendant No, 1 may be restrained from transferring, selling or encumbering the suit property and further that the Excise and Taxation Officer may be restrained from assessing the Capital Gains Tax and issuing clearance certificate in respect of the said property and restrain District Registrar and Sub-Registrar from registering the document in respect of property in dispute. Briefly the facts are that the plaintiffs agreed to purchase property bearing No, 2$5-A Sheet A. M. Artillery Maidan Quarters, Karachi. Annexure B to the plaint is said to be the agreement dated 29th May, 1980 which gives the total amount of sale consideration as 12.5 lacs and has been signed by Qasim Abdul Karim who is the attorney of defendant No,
1. According to the plaintiffs Rs, 6.50 lacs was to be paid as advance and 6 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration. The agreement inter alia provided that Rs, 1 lac was to be paid in advance. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant No, 2 is the sister and attorney of defendant No, 1 and has entered into an agreement to sell this property to defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. This agreement is annexure F to the plaint and was executed in September, 1980. The plaintiffs have alleged that they being the prior purchaser are entitled to have prior right of purchase and the agreement entered subsequently is illegal and void. The defendants have filed counter-affidavit. Reference can be made to the affidavit filed by the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant No, 1 has stated that Qasim Abdul Karim was as an attorney for the purpose of collecting rent and he had no authority to sell the property. He has further stated that he has given a general power of attorney to the defendant No, 2 with power to sell the property and also to manage it. The defendant Nos. 3 to 6 had represented to her that all the tenants of the building including themselves will be the vendees and on that representation she executed the agreement. The defendant No, 2 in her counter-affidavit has stated that she executed the agreement after other tenants of the building did not show any interest in purchasing the property. The general power of attorney in favour of defendant No, 2 and the powers of attorney executed in favour of Qasim Abdul Kairm have been placed on record.
' From these documents and averments made in the plaint the position that emerges is that Qasim Abdul Karim was attorney of the defendant No, 1 who had only authority to collect the rent and manage the property. From the power-of-attorney which has been filed by the plaintiffs it is clear that he was not authorised to sell the said property. The plaintiffs have therefore, contended that the sale-deed was executed in the presence of the defendant No,
1. This has been denied by the defendant No,
1. This sounds reasonable because if defendant No, 1 would have been present at the time of execution of the agreement it would have normally been signed by him. This agreement does not bear the signature of defendant No,
1. Therefore, prima facie it is not possible that the agreement in favour of plaintiffs was executed in the presence of defendant No, 1 or that he was a party of it.
' Mr. Mumtaz the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has referred to para. 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by the defendant No, 1 and has contended that he has admitted that the defendants Nos. 3 to 6 had misrepresented that all the tenants of the property would be the vendees and therefore, the agreement executed in favour of the defendants Nos. 3 to 6 is void and illegal because it is a product of misrepresentation. It is to be noted that the defendant No, 2 in her affidavit seems to have explained this position by stating that she had executed the agreement after the other tenants of the building had shown no interest in the purchase of the said property. This statement does not contradict the statement and the aforestated averment of the defendant No, 1 referred by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It only explains that as other tenants were not interested in purchasing the property the agreement was executed in favour of the defendants Nos. 3 to 6. The contention of Mr. Mumtaz that the agreement is void and illegal due to misrepresentation does not seem to be correct. Firstly, prima facie no case of misrepresentation has been made out and secondly, section 19 of the Contract Act provides that when consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud or misrepresentation the agreement is a contract voidable at the option of the party whose consent was so obtained. The defendant No, 1 has not stated that he wants to avoid the contract.
It is clear that the plaintiffs have entered into an agreement with Qasim Abdul Karim, the attorney of the defendant No, 1 who had no authority to sell the property. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that as Qasim Abdul Kairm was authorised to collect rent and manage the propert he had an implied authority to sell the property. A perusal of the power-of-attorney does not give the impression that it gives any implied power to sell the property. The power-of-attorney is to be strictly construed and no power can be implied which was not intended to have been conferred. This attorney has filed a conuter-affidavit that all the tenants had approached him to purchase the property and on the basis of the general powers-of-attorney dated 27th August, 1975 he "entered into a transaction with all the tenants" who neither paid any advance nor entered into a formal agreement of sal nor they were ready and willing to do anything in furtherance of the transaction which fell through. This attorney acted on the basis of a powe which did not authorise him to sell the property. The sale note produced by the planitiffs does not specify the names of the vendees. After the statement of the said attorney it is clear that the transaction was made in favour of all tenants of the building which may have well-included the defendants Nos. 3 to 6.
' The agreement pleaded by the plaintiffs was executed on 29th May, 1980 but till the filing of the suit that is 7th December, 1981 the plaintiffs have not paid the advance nor have they entered into any proper agreement. It seems clear that even if the plaintiffs' statement is accepted they had lost interest in the transaction. The plaintiffs have failed to make out a prima, facie case. The balance of convenience is not in their favour nor have the'. Plaintiffs established that if injunction is not granted any irreparable injury will be caused to them. The application is, therefore, dismissed.