UNITED BANK LIMITED Versus GUL HASSAN SHAIKH

DECISION

Mr. S. Tauqir Hassan, Advocate has raised preliminary objection that appeal was not presented by aggrieved person as required under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969. He has relied upon the decision of learned Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Sukkur in Constitutional Petition No. D-230 of 1980, decided on 8-5-1991 in the case of President, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and another v. Muhammad Yakoob Chacher and others. In that case the appeal filed by 'the petitioner was dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that it was not presented by the appellant. The order of this Tribunal was challenged before the High Court by the petitioner and the petition was dismissed and the decision of this Tribunal was uphcld by the Hon'ble High Court.

2. This appeal has been presently Mr. Saheb Dino who is an officer of the appellant Bank and holds Power of Attorney, a copy of which has been produced. Article 1 of this Power of Attorney provides that Attorney in the name and on behalf of the bank can do and perform all the acts, deeds etc. as mentioned in the power of attorney jointly with another Attorney. Thus Mr. Saheb Dino individually :vas not authorised to do any act including the presentation of the memo. of appeal on behalf of the appellant but only jointly with another attorney.

3. Mr. Sadiq Khan states, that memo. of appeal is signed by another Attorney also namely Mr. Muhammad Parial Sangi alongwith Mr. Saheb Dino. The memo of appeal bears two signatures but does not show the name of persons who signed it. However, Mr. Sangi was not present at the time of j presentation of appeal therefore the presentation of appeal by Mr. Saheb Dino f was unauthorised.

4. In view of the above factual position and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh Sukkur appeal is dismissed.

H.B.T./1954/Lb. S Appeal dismissed.