HANIFAN BIBI Versus KALU
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges an ex parte decree passed against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Muhammad Sharif, in a suit concerning land ownership. The petitioners argued that the special attorney appointed by Muhammad Sharif, Mst. Hajran Bibi, was only authorized to represent him in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian, and not in the transferee Court at Kasur where the suit was ultimately decreed. The core legal question was whether the scope of the special attorney's power of attorney was limited to a specific court or extended to the defense of the suit regardless of venue. The Supreme Court held that the appointment of the special attorney was for the purpose of defending the suit generally and was not confined to any particular court. Consequently, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings that the defendant was duly represented and that substituted service was properly effected. The petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the ex parte decree.
- Does the appointment of a special attorney to defend a suit expire if the suit is transferred to a different court?
- Is a special attorney's authority limited to the specific court mentioned in the power of attorney if the document authorizes the defense of the suit generally?
- Can an ex parte decree be sustained if the defendant's attorney fails to appear after substituted service has been effected?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.‑ ‑An ex parte decree has been passed against Muhammad Sharif, predecessor‑;n‑interest of the petitioners, by the Civil Judge, Kasur, declaring that Kalu, respondent, was the owner in possession of the disputed land which he had purchased from Muhammad Sharif by a registered sale‑deed
2. Muhammad Sharif had appointed Mst. Hajran Bibi, his mother, in law, as his special attorney to defend the suit which was originally filed at Chunian but was later on transferred by the Distract Judge to Kasur. The petitioners were bound down to appear before the transferee Court on a given date. Mst. Hajran Bibi put in appearance on that date hut later on absented herself. Thereupon substituted service was effected on Muhammad Sharif and in his absence the suit was decreed ex parse.
3. An appeal was taken from the ex parte decree to the District judge who dismissed it affirming the view of the Civil judge that Muhammad Sharif was duly represented by his special attorney and substituted service had been effected on him. A further revision petition from that order has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence this fie6t.on for special leave to appeal.
4. It is contended that Mst. Hajran Bibi had been appoints special attorney to appear in the Court of Civil Judge, Chunian only The plea is without any substance as fist. Hajran Bibi was to defend the suits and her appointment was not confined to appear in any particular Court.
5. The petition is dismissed.
6. Petition dismissed.