1. ' CHAUDHURY RAHIM DAD KHAN, C..1-This petition for leave to appeal was presented by Mr. M. A.
2. Farooq, Advocate and is signed and verified by him. It was instituted on 13-5-1976.
3. ' An objection in the caveat was taken to the effect that Mr. M. A. Farooq, who filed the petition for leave to appeal in the present case was not authorised to act on behalf of Abdul Karim, petitioner because he had no valid authority on behalf of the petitioner for filing a petition for leave to appeal or performing any other act. Order III, rule 4, sub-clause (1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides the conditions that are necessary in order to enable an advocate to act on behalf of a party in suit which reads :- "No pleader shall act for any person in any Court unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment."
4. ' Order III, rule 4 does not lay down an absolute rule but is subject to the Rules of the High Court regulating procedure. After judgment is given in a case and a decree is passed, a right of appeal can be exercised only by those persons in whom the power is vested expressly or implicitly by the statute. A right of appeal is given to an aggrieved party who can present an appeal either personally or through his Advocate duly appointed of course, leave to appeal can be granted to a person who is not a party to a suit if his interest is involved in the case which interest is being adversely affected by the judgment, decree, order or sentence. PLD 1953 SC 333 may be cited in support of this view. But a person not aggrieved by an order cannot file a petition for leave to appeal. In Secretary to the Government of Punjab and others v. Ch. Hameed-ud-Din and others (1) where the services of the respondent were terminated by the Lahore Municipal Corporation while the appeal was filed by the Government, it was observed :- "If that is so, it is for the Lahore Municipal Corporation to challenge the order of the High Court. The petitioner cannot challenge the judgment of the High Court on behalf of Lahore Municipal Corporation. It has no locus standi to do so."
5. ' Consequently the petition was dismissed. The petition in the present case is signed by Mr. M. A.
6. Farooq, Advocate but his personal interest in the case is not at all involved and he is not a party. He could file the petition only on behalf of the party who is aggrieved. Rule 11 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules regulates the procedure in this behalf and lays down the conditions that are necessary for investing an advocate with authority to act on behalf of a person. The relevant provisions are: "Every Advocate shall before acting on behalf of any person or party file in the Registry a power of attorney in the prescribed form authorising him to act."
7. ' These provisions would clearly show that before an Advocate can act for a party he must firstly have an authority by him to do so and secondly that authority must be in writing. Unless these two conditions are complied with, an action taken by an Advocate on behalf of a person would not be deemed to be a valid performance of his functions. In the absence of a duly executed power of attorney, it would be said that such Advocate had no authority to act on behalf of that person.
8. ' In the instant case Abdul Karim (petitioner) was admittedly in United Kingdom when the appeal was filed by Mr. M. A. Farooq, Advocate. The power of attorney placed on record with the petition does not bear the signature of Abdul Karim, petitioner or his authorised agent authorising the Advocate to take an action in the Supreme Court. Consequently filing of the petition on behalf of Abdul Karim by the Advocate who had not been duly appointed by a document in writing and signed as required by rules, is not only an irregularity which may be cured at subsequent stage but is completely, devoid of validity. A pleader who files a petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court in fact acts for him and cannot therefore, do so except when he is authorised in writing by such person. The petition having been filed without valid authority is a nullity and being incompetent is, therefore, rejected. The parties shall bear their own costs.