' Facts giving rise to this Civil Revision arc that respondents Nos. 1 to 5, ' Qazi Imtiaz-ul-Hassan and .4 others, filed a suit against respondent No, 6, Municipal Committee, Daska, District Sialkot. Subsequently, the petitioner, Muhammad Shafi was also impleaded as defendant No,2 in the said suit. The suit was decreed by a Civil Judge whereupon respondent No,6 went in appeal before an Additional Distict Judge. In the appeal, the petitioner figured as respondent No,6. The other respondents were the plaintiffs in the suit, namely, Qazi Imtiaz-ul- Ha..San and 4 others. On 10th October, 1982, the appeal was decided on the basis of statements alleged to have been made by learned counsel for the parties. Resultantly, the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Court were modified. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court the petitioner has come up in revision to this Court.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner did not make any statement enabling the learned appellate Court to pass the impugned judgment and decree. His plea is that Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, who made statement on behalf of the respondents represented respondents Nos.1 to 5 in the appeal bur not respondent No,6 therein. As indicated above, the petitioner was respondent No,6 in the appeal. After making the above submissions, it was maintained by learned counsel for the petitioner that judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court on the basis of the aforesaid statement of Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, are not binding on the petitioner.
3. I have gone through the power of attorney filed by Ch. Nazir Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate, beforo the learned appellate Court and find that the petitioner did not engage him as his counsel. Mr. Bajwa had, therefore, no authority to make statement on his behalf. The petitioner did not himself make any statement in terms of the statement of the learned counsel which constitute the basis of the judgment and decree under challenge. In the circumstances, judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court do not bind the petitioner and deserve to be set aside to his extent.
4. Resultantly, this civil revision is accepted, judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court against the petitioner are set aside and the appeal is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge with the direction that he shall re-decide the appeal against the petitioner in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.
5. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Additional District Judge on 20th November, 1991.