1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to call in question an order made by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on 7-2-1972, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, was dismissed.
2. The dispute relates to shop No. B. III-1S-4, situate on Circular Road, Gujranwala. It was purchased in open auction on 11-5-1960 by respondent No. 2, Muhammad Ashraf, through his brother and Attorney, Abdul Ghaffar (respondent No. 3). The auction was duly confirmed in favour of the respondent by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. At that time, Muhammad Ashraf was residing in the United Kingdom.
3. On 10-1-1962 one Muhammad Sharif, who is not a party to the present proceedings, made an application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner for the cancellation of the auction, and claiming the right-to participate in a fresh auction in his capacity as a claimant displaced person.
4. This application was dismissed by the Officer concerned on 12-6-62, and Muhammad Sharif was directed to seek judicial remedy. Accordingly, this gentleman filed a regular appeal on 1-8-1960, and the same was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 13th of November 1962, and the auction already confirmed in favour of respondent Muhammad Ashraf was cancelled, mainly on the ground that the power of attorney executed by Muhammad Ashraf in favour of his brother Abdul Ghaffar did not authorise participation in the said auction.
5. Aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, the auction-purchaser Muhammad Ashraf filed a revision petition, but the same was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 4-4-1964. It was in these circumstances that Muhammad Ashraf invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court on the 13th of June 1964. The writ petition was accepted by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 2nd of August 1971, holding that the Settlement authorities were in error in thinking that the power of attorney executed by Muhammad Ashraf in favour of his brother Abdul Gbaffar did not cover the present transaction. In coming to this conclusion the learned Judge took note of the letter of revocation written by Muhammad Ashraf on 16-9-1961. It may be stated here that on 4-8-1961 Muhammad Ashraf executed a fresh power of attorney in favour of another brother named Taj Muhammad. As a result of the acceptance of Muhammad Ashraf's constitution petition, the auction in his favour was restored.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition a new development took place, namely, fresh auction of the property on the 19th of June 1964, at which the present petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob was the highest bidder. He was impleaded as a party in the writ petition and filed a written statement before the High Court. In view of the acceptance of Muhammad Ashraf's petition, the second auction in favour of the petitioner stood annulled.
7. As already stated, the petitioner challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by an appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court, but the same was dismissed in 1fmine by the Division Bench on 7-2-1972. The learned Judges have upheld the view taken by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the power of attorney executed by Muhammad Ashraf in favour of his brother Abdul Ghaffar was to be read along with the letter of revocation dated the 16th of September 1961, and that the two documents read together left no doubt that the participa--tion of Abdul Ghaffar in the auction held on 11-5-1960 was fully covered by the authority given to him by his brother Muhammad Ashraf. The learned Judges have also taken note of the fact that the petitioner Muhammad Yaqoob purchased the property pendente lite, and had nowhere asserted that he was a bona fide purchaser.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Saeed Akhtar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has erred in reading into the power of attorney something which was not included therein, nor intended, by Muhammad Ashraf. He contends that the original power of attorney executed by Muhammad Ashraf on 2-6-59 in favour of his brother Abdul Ghaffar in fact speaks of the manage- -ment of properties abandoned by Muhammad Ashraf in Ludhiana and has no connection whatsoever with the acquisition of property in Pakistan. He submits that in terms of the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 9th of January 1960 regarding the procedure for the holding of auctions, it was incumbent upon the agent Abdul Ghaffar to be duly armed with authority from Muhammad Ashraf to participate in the auction, and in the absence of such clear authority, the auction in favour of Muhammad Ashraf was ab initio void.
9. It is correct that in accordance with the relevant instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 9th of January 1960, read in conjunction with the terms and conditions already made applicable by him to the auction of industrial concerns and cinema houses, which were applied mutatis mutandis for the auction of shops, it was necessary for the agent Abdul Ghaffar to be armed with a duly executed power of attorney to participate in the auction of the property on behalf of his brother Muhammad Ashraf. The question, therefore, is whether the High Court was right in construing the relevant documents so as to spell out such authority.
10. The original power of attorney executed by Muhammad Ashraf on the 2nd of June 1959 deals with the management of properties abandoned by him in the city of Ludhiana in India. It is clear that on the date of the execution of this document there was no question of Muhammad Ashraf's brother Abdul Ghaffar, who was residing in Pakistan. Managing properties abandoned by Muhammad Ashraf in India, and, therefore, the intention o Muhammad Ashraf, in the circumstances, was to authorise his brother to deal with all matters arising out of the abandonment of that property in India, and not its management in the ordinary sense. That the power of attorney was so construed is clear from the fact that armed with this document, Abdul Ghaffar got Muhammad Ashraf's claim verified from the Claims Organisation. In fact the copy of the power of attorney, now placed on the record, was obtained by the Settlement authorities from the files of the Claims Department.
11. In these circumstances, the High Court was right in reading this power of attorney in conjunction with the two letters of revocation written by Muhammad Ashraf on 4-8-1961 and 16-9-1961. In the latter document Muhammad Ashraf clearly informed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, that he was revoking the power of attorney in relation to the shop in dispute as well.
12. We consider, therefore, that the construction placed upon the relevant documents by the High Court is not such as can be said to be unreasonable or improper in the circumstances of the case.
13. Another aspect of the matter is that the condition requiring the presence of a duly empowered attorney for participating in auction on behalf of another, is at best directory in nature, intended to ensure that fictitious bids are not made by unauthorised persons. If the principal is named and accepts the action of his agent, even though the same was not covered by a duly executed power of attorney at the time of the auction, the matter would be fully covered by the doctrine of ratification, as embodied in section 196 of the Contract Act, 1872. In the present case, there is unmistakable evidence that Muhammad Ashraf fully ratified the action of his attorney Abdul Ghaffar inasmuch as the compensa--tion books of Muhammad Ashraf were utilised for the payment of price, and when the auction was set aside by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Muhammad Ashraf went in revision to the learned Settlement Commissioner, and subsequently invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court for restoring the auction in his favour. The learned counsel sought to make capital out of the fact that during the hearing of the revision petition, Muhammad Ashraf had come to Pakistan from the United Kingdom but avoided appearance before the Settlement Commissioner. The circumstances under which this happened were not fully brought on the record and no adverse inference can be drawn against Muhammad Ashraf in view of the fact that he fully ratified his attorney's action.
14. For the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the High Court was right in restoring the auction in favour of the respondent. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.