1. This is an application filed under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Wherein the defendant has prayed that the plaint should be rejected on the ground that the plaint has not been filed by a proper person as alleged power of attorney given by the plaintiff has not been attested and executed before the Pakistan Embassy in Singapore. He has further claimed that the Government of Pakistan and Japan have no reciprocal agreement and notaries of documents under section 14 of the Notaries Ordinance. He has further claimed that the Board of Directors has not passed a resolution authorizing the person to institute a suit. Alongwith his application an affidavit has been filed wherein nothing has been added to the objection raised in the main application. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Mr. Naveed Afzal Qari son of Mian Muhammad Afzal Qari who has stated that he is a attorney of the plaintiff and has denied the contention of the application. He has further raised objections to the effect that the application has not been drafted and filed as prescribed by Rule 74 of Sindh Chief Court rules and that the provision of Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Is not attracted to the case as factual controversies are involved, therefore plaint cannot be rejected without recording of evidence. Furthermore according to them the provisions of Article 95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat have been fulfilled therefore there is no infirmity in the said documents, I have heard both the counsel and have looked at Annexure A to the plaint which is supposed to be a copy of power of attorney. On the face of it an attestation Stamp has been imposed by the 'First Secretary High Commissioner of Pakistan in Singapore. It has also been attested by Commissioner for Oath Singapore and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I am positive that if called upon the plaintiff would be in a position to produce the original documents however I am wondering why the learned counsel has raised objection that Japan and Pakistan do not have reciprocal arrangement since the document has been attested at Singapore and the plaintiff is incorporated in Singapore. There is no mention whatsoever to Japan in the entire plaint and therefore to that extent the plaintiff's objection is meaningless. I am inclined to in any case agree with the counsel for the plaintiff that the points raised are disputed facts as proof of a foreign Law or of any existing agreement has to be brought on record only through evidence. Learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the case of National Bank of Pakistan v. KDA PLD 1999 Karachi 260 in this case the question had come up whether person authorized to file the suit on behalf of the corporate body had such authority. The Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was duly authorized to file suit. The learned Single Judge of this Court had looked into this objection at the final stage only after evidence had been recorded. This objection can be looked into at the final stage of arguments. Learned counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand has alleged that the provision of Order 29. Rule 1, C.P.C. Relates to suit by or against Corporation and it further states that the pleadings have to be signed and verified on behalf of the Corporation by the Secretary or Director or principal officer competent to depose to the facts of the case. Furthermore Order 3, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Relates to an appearance in Court by any party in person or by his recognized agent or a pleader on his behalf. Order 3, Rule 2 further relates to and describes recognized agents to those who hold valid power of attorney.
2. Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat relates to power of attorney and the presumption is that the document shall be a power of attorney and duly executed and authenticated unless shown otherwise. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the case of N.V. Nutrica v, Messrs Nutrica Foods International (Pvt.) Ltd. And another, 2000 CLC 866, where a similar objection had been raised and whilst relying on several ease laws the application under Order 7, Rule 11, C,P,C, was dismissed, In the case of ANZ Orindlays Bank Ltd, v, Saadi Cement Company Limited and 2 others reported in PLD 2001 Karachi 143, Article 93 of Qanun-e-Shahadat been discussed as similar objection had been raised and after discussing several case-laws has come to the following conclusion: "The certificate referred above shows that Notary Public before the attestation and authentication of the Power of Attorney has satisfied himself that the persons who are executing the power of attorney are authorized officers of the company. There is also presumption of regularity of official acts particularly regarding execution and authentication of the Power of Attorney, which takes the same as valid and effective under the provisions of Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.
3. Secondly, whether the person signing the plaint has the authority on behalf of the plaintiff is a question of fact, cannot be allowed to be raised unless pleaded and the other side has opportunity to meet such plea. Therefore, the submission is untenable".
4. He has further relied on the case of Rashid Khan v. Shujauddin reported in 1986 MLD 2930, where the Court had held that once documents attested by the First Secretary Embassy of Pakistan then it would be construed as valid documents. Considering the above the application is not maintainable and is dismissed.