' Khan Muhammad son of Muhammad Bux and seven others filed a suit for declaration of title against Fazal-e-Haq and 22 others in respect of land fully described in the plaint. Defendants Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 13 to 23 engaged Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah, Advocate who submitted a written statement dated 1-9-1980, wherein, the suit was .Contested by defendants on law and facts of the case. A perusal of the written statement on the record would show signatures and thumb- impressions respectively of the said defendants who had submitted the written statement through the said counsel.- Defendants Nos.8 to 12 filed a separate written statement through counsel, wherein, the claim of the plaintiff was conceded and it was stated that they would have no objection, if the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed. It appears from the record that vide order dated 16-4-1980 defendant No,4 was deleted from the record while vide order, dated 31-1-1981 defendant No,3 was proceeded against ex parte. Before the parties could go on trial the learned counsel for the parties appeared in the Court on 1-6-1981 and submitted a compromise Mark "A" in the Court with the prayer that the suit of the plaintiff be disposed of in accordance with the contents of the compromise Mark "A". Statements of the learned counsel were recorded on 11-6-1981 when the learned trial Court proceed to partially decree the suit of the plaintiffs in terms of compromise Mark "A" (described as Mark "C") and also in view of the conceding written statement by defendants Nos.8 to 12. Against this compromise decree an appeal was filed by the following parties Ali Muhammad (defendant No,19), Ghulam Qadir (defendant No,23), Shamas-ud-Din (defendant No,6), Abdul Razzaq (defendant No, 14), Abdul Lateef (defendant No, 15), Mst. Ghulam Aisha (defendant No,16), Mst. Ghulam Sakina (defendant No,17, Mst. Gulan (defendant No,18) and Zahoor- ul-Haq (defendant No,2). In the said appeal the main contention against the compromise decree was that the said appellants had appointed Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah, Advocate as their counsel in whose favour a Vakalatnama was also executed but the said counsel had no authority to enter into any compromise. It was also averred that the compromise was a result of collusion.
The said appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rahimyarkhan vide judgment and decree, dated 31-1-1985 on the ground that a counsel who has been appointed by a party to represent him in a Court, also has the implied authority to effect a compromise unless there is any instruction to the contrary.
2. The present civil revision has been filed by Ghulam Muhammad and 12 others. It is noticed that Ghulam Muhammad, Allah' Bux, Muhammad Ibrahim, Mst. Sardar Begum, Mst. Sharam, Mst. Wazir petitioners (herein) had not assailed the compromise decree, dated 11-6-1981. Upon no principle of law can they be allowed to file a revision petition against the compromise decree, dated 11-6-1981 or the judgment in appeal, dated 31-1-1985.
3. Sardar Muhammad Aslam Khan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners stated that the learned counsel namely Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah had no authority to enter into a compromise in the suit. He further referred to one of the two Vakalatnamas existing in favour of Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah and pointed out that the names/signatures/thumb-impressions of Allah Bux, Muhammad Ibrahim and Mst. Sardar Bibi have been scored out. From this the learned counsel wanted to infer that the power of attorney had been withdrawn from Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah, Advocate by at least these persons.
4. On the other hand, Mr. M.M.A. Pirzada, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the compromise was lawfully effected between the parties and that the power to enter into a compromise is implied in the authority of the Advocate in whose favour the Vakalatnama is given. Regarding the allegation that some names/signatures have been scored out from one of the Vakalatnamas in favour of Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah, Advocate, he stated that unless the Vakalatnama is determined and revoked by order of the Court, nothing can detract from the validity of the power given to the counsel.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. Order III, rule 4 of C.P.C. Is reproduced below:-- "(i) 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 recognized agent or by some other person duly authorized by or under a power of attorney to make such appointment.
"(ii) Every such appointment shall be filed in Court and shall be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, as the case may be and filed in Court or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client."
7. The appointment of a counsel made through a Vakalatnama which is duly filed in the Court shall remain in force unless determined or revoked with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by client or the pleader which revocation has to be filed in the Court. In the present case both, the Vakalatnamas in favour of the learned counsel Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah, Advocate are on the record. There is no application for withdrawal of the said Vakalatnama nor indeed there is any order permitting the same. A perusal of the written statement filed by defendants represented by their counsel Syed Muhammad Anwar Shah, Advocate would show that the said written statement bear the signatures or thumb-impression of all the said defendants. Thus, it is incorrect to contend that the Vakalatnama could be or was in fact withdrawn cancelled, or revoked. The Vakalatnama was in force when the compromise was effected. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said learned counsel had no authority to enter into a compromise as none was conferred upon him is also devoid of merit. It is by now a settled proposition of law that a counsel has the implied authority to effect a compromise unless, he had been specifically instructed to the contrary. This is supported by rule laid down in Dr. Ansar Hassan Rizvi v. Syed Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others 1971 SCM R 634, Messrs Azhar Asia Shipping Agency and another v. Ghaffar Corporation PLD 1996 SC 213, Mst. Noor Jahan v. Azmat Hussain Farooqi and another 1992 SCM R 876.
It is noticed that petitioners Nos.1 to 6 had not challenged to compromise decree dated 11-6-1981 in appeal. It was only petitioners Nos.7 to 13 who had preferred the appeal which was dismissed. The revision of petitioners Nos.1 to 6 is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this civil revision which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.