This matter arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the petitioners through an attorney, which was dismissed by three lower forums on the grounds that the petitioners failed to prove Talb-i-Ishhad. The core legal question was whether a general power of attorney authorizing the institution of a suit for pre-emption inherently includes the authority to perform the mandatory legal requirement of Talb-i-Ishhad (Demand of Confirmation) under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The Supreme Court, while dismissing the petitions, held that a power of attorney must be strictly construed. It ruled that only powers expressly and specifically mentioned in the document can be exercised by an agent. Under Section 14 of the Act, while an agent may make demands on behalf of a principal, such authority must be conferred in express terms prior to the making of the demands. The Court affirmed that authority to institute a suit (signing, verifying, and presenting a plaint) does not encompass the power to perform Talbs unless specifically stated, and such a deficiency cannot be cured by subsequent ratification.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Petitioners-pre-emptors have lost their cause of pre-emption ,before all the three forums below on the teasoning that they have-not been able to prove Talb-i-Ishhad. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners had filed a suit for pre emption through their attorney. Same is the position with respect to the issuance of Talb-i-Ishhad which was through the attorney or the petitioners and not by themselves. The learned Courts below, by holding that the power of attorney of the agent, does not empower him to make Talb-i-Ishhad by issuing a notice in the context of section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991, has dismissed the suit.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners by making' reference to the power a attorney (Exh.P1) dated 8-5-1994 has argued that the same (power of attorney) authorizes the agent, the attorney of the petitioners, to institute a suit and such authority shall include ancillary and incidental powers/authority given .By the principal, qua the issuance of notice of Talb-i-Ishhad as well.
3. Heard. It is a settled law that the power of attorney should be construed strictly and only such powers, v(thich are expressly and specifically mentioned in the power of attorney, must be exercised by the .Agent as considered to have been delegated to him (for reference see PLD 2002 SC 71). We have examined Exh.P1 and find that there is no mention at all, empowering the agent to issue the notice of Talb-i-Ishhad rather it is, only restricted to the institution of the suit for pre- emption and matters incidental thereto (the suit). According to section 14 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1991 "Demand by guardian or agent.--Where a person is unable to make demands under section 13, his guardian or agent may make the required demands on his behalf". Thus from the afore-stated mandate of law, though the power of making Talbs can be delegated to an agent, but such power must be conferred specifically and C in express terms and that too before making of Talbs. If there is no express authority, as aforementioned, such lapse cannot be made up by the principal subsequently on the principle of ratification under the law of agency.
4. In a case involving akin facts, the Lahore High Court in the dictum Nawab Ali through General Attorney v. Javaid Iqbal Nabi and others (PLD 2009 Lahore 49) has held as follows:-- 'The argument that because the power to file a suit for preemption is given to him in the general power of attorney dated 28-9-1998 (Exh.P5), therefore it should necessarily be read to include the power of making the Talbs, is not correct, because it is the settled law, that a power of attorney should be construed strictly and under the rule of interpretation of the documents, which is akin to the principles about the interpretation of law, nothing should be read therein. The authority to file the suit for the pre-emption clearly meant the institution in its legal context i.e, signing verification and the presentation of the plaint and the engaging of the counsel, but by no stretch of interpretation, it can be held that the petitioner has given the power to his attorney to make the Talbs."
' The above is the correct and apt exposition of the law, which is hereby fully endorsed and the instant case is squarely covered thereby.
5. In the light of the above, we do not find that a valid Talb-iIshhad was made by the petitioners, therefore, their claim of pre-emption has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. Hence, these petitions are dismissed. Leave refused.