' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 8-8- 1992 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby he set aside judgment and decree dated 13-6-1978, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, and accepted the revision petition.
2. Mst. Kharian Bibi instituted a suit for possession by pre-emption on 10-12-1%3, through her brother and attorney Allah Rakha. The suit was contested by the respondent but was decreed on 6-11-1976 by Senior Civil Judge, Gujranwala. On appeal preferred by vendee/petitioner the respondent's suit was dismissed on 13-6-1978 by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. The respondent challenged the aforesaid judgment and decree in second appeal but the same was converted into civil revision and accepted vide impugned judgment passed by the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the suit was filed by Mst. Kharian Bibi through her brother as attorney but the latter did not thumb-mark the plaints as well as Waqalatnama, therefore, the suit was not properly instituted. The power of attorney dated 29-11-1963, was produced in Court on 14-5-1975. The suit was, therefore, instituted by a person not legally authorised to do so. In support of his submission learned counsel relied on the provision of rule 6, Order III, C.P.C. He, however, could not refute, the fact that no objection on the record to the proper institution of the suit was raised until on 10-4-1975, an application seeking amendment of written statement was filed before the trial Court. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court repelling the contention observed: "It seems to me that in the facts of the case, there should be no doubt that the plaintiff had executed a power of attorney in favour of Allah Rakha on 29-11-1963, that is before the institution of the suit. Exh.P4 shows that it was duly attested by a Magistrate. That the defendants had not taken the objection that Allah Rakha was not the attorney of Mst. Kharian Bibi till as late as 10-4-1975, also shows that they had no doubt about his authority to act as her attorney. The power of attorney had, in fact, been placed on record before any such objection was taken, that is on 14-5-1975. Mst.
Kharian Bibi herself entered into the witness-box on 3-6-1976 and owned this deed and also admitted that she had constituted Allah Rakha as her attorney. Further rule 6, sub-rule (2) of Order III of the C.P.C. Does not require that the power of attorney shall be filed with the plaint; what it requires is that it 'shall be filed in Court'. However, the irregularity if any must be deemed to have been cured by the filing of the power of attorney in Court on 14-5-1974. The law on the point appears to be well-settled and it will, in this behalf, be sufficient to refer to Ghulam Qadir and others v. Abdul Sattar and another (PLD 1984 SC 12). It has been seen that before the arrival of the stage of evidence Ch. Fateh Muhammad had been substituted for Allah Rakha as the plaintiff's attorney. It was in the evidence of Ch. Fateh Muhammad that Allah Rakha had turned blind. It appears that blame, if any, for not filing the power of attorney with the plaint lay at the door of Allah Rakha. I do not, therefore, think that this irregularity should have produced so serious a consequence as to render the suit incompetent or time-barred."
' We find no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment on the point highlighted above.
The learned counsel half-heartedly raised objection to the conversion of the second appeal to revision petition. Suffice it to observe that the High Court is competent to convert the appeal into revision petition even on a verbal prayer made by the party concerned.
' For the reasons stated above we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed and .