' This petition for Civil Revision calls in question the judgment and decree dated 14-6-1983 passed by the learned Judge Small Causes Court, Lahore, whereby he decreed the respondent's suit for recovery of RS,4494.96 against the petitioners with interest at the rate stated in the plaint, till the recovery of the decretal amount and also awarded costs to the respondent.
2. The respondent viz. M/S United Bank Ltd. a banking company, registered under the Companies Act, having its Registered Office at State Life Insurance House, I. I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi, and its Branch Office known as U.B.L. Bank Square, Lahore, filed a suit against the petitioners purporting to be through M/S Muhammad Tayyab Rabbani and Muhammad Rafiq, two principal officers of the respondent Bank allegedly having powers-of-attorney in their favour, for the recovery of RS,4494.96 as on 30-4-1980 together with future interest at the rate of RS,14$ per annum till the final realization.
3. The suit was resisted by the petitioners who besides controverting the respondent's allegations also raised the preliminary objection to the effect that the suit on behalf of the respondent-Bank had not been filed by properly authorized' persons and that the same was also barred by time.
4. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Lahore, who was seized of the matter allowed several opportunities to the respondent Bank for producing its evidence but the said Bank simply produced Ex.P.1, Power of Attorney, Exh.P.2 form submitted by the petitioner for opening the account, and Exh.P.3 specimen signatures of the petitioneRS, Muhammad Rafiq, a Bank Officer, was also examined as P.W.1, No evidence was, however, led by the petitioneRS,
5. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the afore-mentioned oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the respondent-Bank, decreed the respondent's claim.
6. It transpires from the contents of the impugned judgment passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court that the learned Judge mainly placed reliance on the statement of account referred to by Muhammad Rafiq in his statement and also on a cheque dated 4-7-1977 of the amount of RS,2,980. Neither the said cheque has been produced and formally proved before the learned trial Court nor the statement of account or its certified copy has been brought on the record. It thus manifestly transpires that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the contents of documents which have not been produced and proved before it. Oral statement of A Muhammad Rafiq, P.W.1, with regard to the contents of the aforesaid documents without the formal production of such documents cannot be legally relied upon.
7. In the above circumstances, the learned trial Court has acted illegally and with material irregularity for arriving at a conclusion that a sum of RS,4,494.96 was payable by the petitioners to the respondent Bank on the basis of the statement of account which has not been duly proved before the Court.
8. It has also been noticed that Power-of-Attorney (photo stat- copy Exh.P.1) stands executed for and on behalf of United Bank Ltd., in favour of Mr.Muhammad Rafiq Qureshi son of Khuda Bakhsh.
Para 1 of the Power-of-Attorney reads:- "Jointly with another Attorney of the Bank for and in the name and on behalf of the Bank to do, execute, transact and perform all or any of the acts, deeds, matters and things following at any place or places."
' Sub-para. (9) under paragraph 1 above, reads:- "To commence, prosecute, continue and defend all actions, suits or legal proceedings whether civil, criminal or revenue, including proceedings to procure or establish the bankruptcy or insolvency of any person or firm or liquidation or winding up of any company, to compromise or refer to arbitration any claims or disputes either in such suits or proceedings or otherwise; to appoint Solicitors, Advocates, Pleaders, Vakils, and other legal agents; to make sign, verify, execute, plaints, petitions, Written Statements, Memorandum of Appeal, applications, tabular statements, Vakalatnamas, Warrants of Authority or any other papers, writings or documents expedient or necessary in the opinion of the Attorney to be made, signed, executed, verified, presented or filed."
' Paragraph 2 of the Power of Attorney enumerates the acts which can be done singly by the Attorney.
It thus becomes evident from the afore-mentioned contents the Power of Attorney that a suit on behalf of the Bank can be filed by two attorneys jointly and one attorney singly is not competent to do SO.
8. The suit giving rise to the present Revision Petition also purports to have been filed by two attorneys namely Muhammad Tayyab Rabbani and Muhammad Rafiq.
9. There is nothing on the records to suggest that Muhammad Tayyab Rabbani who alongwith Muhammad Rafiq signed the plaint and the Power of Attorney has in fact been appointed as Attorney by and on behalf of the Bank. Muhammad Rafiq while appearing as P.W.1 has not uttered a single word to the effect that Mr.Muhammad Tayyab Rabbani also happened to be a Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the Bank. B No documentary evidence in that behalf has also been produced.
10. In this view of the matter, the respondent Bank has not been able to prove that the suit was filed on behalf of the Bank by duly authorized persons.
11. In view of the short comings noticed above, which amount to illegalities and material irregularities within the meaning of section 115-C.P.C., I allow this Revision Petition, set aside the