SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J.---A general power of attorney dated 21-9-1994 was registered at Haripur under Serial No. 494, Bhi No.4, Jild 22 at pages 88/89 purporting to be on behalf of Haider and Safdar sons of Latif, Anduwal of village Chajaka Haripur in favour of Luqman Shah son of Zaman Shah of Swabi Maira. On the basis of such power of attorney the agent Luqman Shah sold some property of the principals situated in Tehsil Khanewal, District Multan.
2. Safdar (the principal) and another Gohar Rahman son of Haider (the principal) brought a suit before Civil Court at Haripur against Syed Luqman Shah wherein the aforesaid general power of attorney was challenged to be the result of fraud. As, the transactions based on such general power of attorney had taken place at Khanewal Multan and as they had arisen from the same cause of action, therefore, under the law, all these ought to have been challenged in one suit but as the property of Khanewal was not within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court at Haripur, the plaintiff applied for permission of the Court within the contemplation of Order 2, Rule 3, C.P.C. In order to avoid the mischief of Order 2 Rule 2 of the C.P.C.
3. Through her order dated 7-12-1994, Miss Farrah Jamshed learned Civil Judge, 1st Class, Haripur while relying on "Manubothula Rama Rao v. Manubothula Venkayamma and another" (AIR 1931 Madras 705), allowed such permission which was upheld by Malik Mujtba Ahmed, learned District Judge, Haripur on 20-5-1996. Both the orders are challenged before us by invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.
4. We had the opportunity of hearing Mr. Fida Muhammad Khan learned counsel for the petitioner who was of the view that all the reliefs arising out of one and the same cause of action ought to have been joined together in one suit which the plaintiffs had failed and thus their suit was likely to be hit by section 11 and Order 2, rule 2, C.P.C. And even if certain suits are instituted at Khanewal Multan, they were most likely to be hit by section 10 of the C.P.C. That in this view of the matter the present suit brought at Haripur was liable to be dismissed but has been saved through the impugned orders.
5. We have given our anxious thought to the problem and hold a considered view that the very provisions of Order 2, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. Invoked by the Courts below are squarely attracted in a situation exactly like the one in hand. The law-maker has provided this provision of law under Order 2 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. Only and only to avoid the application of res judicata, constructive res judicata and Order 2, Rule 2 of the C.P.C- for a plaintiff who litigates under a bona fide claim.
6. As the law gives an authority to the Court to grant the relevant permission, the exercise of power thereunder is therefore, not without jurisdiction and there can be numerdus situations where such exercise becomes legal as well as equitable. .
7. Coming to the circumstances of the present case, if the plaintiff brings a suit at Haripur, qua the property at Khanewal, without joining some property at Haripur, it would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate thereon. On the other hand if the general power of attorney is challenged at Khanewal Multan the plaintiff will have the difficulty to disprove a fact that had taken place at Haripur and might also have to face a strong objection about territorial jurisdiction. The balance tilts towards the plaintiff because the power of attorney was of course attested at Haripur. In our view the instant one was the most apt situation where the Court ought to have had exercised its authority under Order 2, Rule 3 of the C.P.C. And we further hold that such power can be exercised also in a situation where different suits likely to be brought fall under different territorial jurisdiction.
8. Both the Courts below have not acted without jurisdiction and also have not failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them. The writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine.