MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN KHAN vs AKBER JAN
This petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court arose out of a declaratory suit seeking cancellation of a compromise decree. The petitioner had originally filed a pre-emption suit and appointed an attorney through a special power of attorney to conduct the suit. The attorney subsequently submitted a compromise deed (Razinama) and withdrew the suit, resulting in its dismissal. The petitioner challenged the compromise and dismissal by filing a declaratory suit alleging fraud and collusion by his attorney. While the trial court decreed the suit, the District Judge reversed the decree, and subsequent appeals before the Single Bench and Letters Patent Bench of the High Court were dismissed. The Supreme Court examined the original power of attorney and held that it explicitly empowered the attorney to compromise the suit and make necessary applications. Consequently, the attorney acted within his authority, and the dismissal of the suit was valid. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's remedy for alleged fraud lay in an action for damages against the attorney, and dismissed the petition.
- Whether a compromise and withdrawal of a suit effected by an attorney is binding on the principal when the power of attorney expressly confers the authority to compromise?
- Can a principal challenge a court decree based on a compromise entered into by his authorized attorney on grounds of fraud without seeking damages directly against the attorney?
- What is the appropriate remedy for a litigant who claims to have been defrauded through a collusive compromise entered into by his authorized attorney acting within the scope of his power of attorney?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition for special leave is the outcome of a pre-emption suit, which was filed by the petitioner on the 26th of October 1966, in the Court of Civil Judge, Mansehra. One Ghulam Rabbani was appointed by the petitioner as his attorney for the conduct of that suit by a special power of attorney dated the 25th of October 1966, which was annexed with the plaint. The suit was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiff for the 1st of March 1967. On that date, a Razinama duly signed by the aforesaid Ghulam Rabbani attorney for the petitioner, was filed in Court. This was also signed by the defendant and two witnesses. In this Razinama, it was prayed that as the matter has been compromised, the plaintiff-petitioner wants to withdraw the case, which should.
2. Therefore, be dismissed. On the back of the Razinama, the following statement of Ghulam Rabbani, the aforesaid attorney, was also recorded; As a result, the Civil Judge passed the following order :---- The petitioner thereafter instituted a declaratory suit to the effect that the compromise dated the 1st of March 1967, which had been made by his attorney, Ghulam Rabbani, whereby he withdrew the pre-emption suit, was based on a fraud and collusion, and liable to cancellation. He further prayed that the dismissal of his pre-emption suit on the basis of that compromise was not binding on him. This suit was decreed by the trial Judge, but it was dismissed on appeal by the District Judge, Hazara. A second appeal taken to the High Court by the petitioner was also dismissed, and this dismissal was confirmed by the Letters Patent Bench.
3. We have examined the original power of attorney given by the petitioner to Ghulam Rabbani, which clearly recites that the Mukhtar will have the power to compromise the suit and to make any other application, which was considered to be necessary for the course of the suit. In view of this power conferred on the Mukhtar, the latter acted within his authority to withdraw the suit. No exception can be taken to the dismissal of the suit on the basis of the statement of the petitioner's attorney. If, however, the petitioner feels that he was defrauded by his attorney by collusion with the other party, he may, if so advised, seek the remedy against him by way of damages. There is no substance in this petition, which is dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- UMAR DARAZ Versus MUHAMMAD YAR alias MAHMAN 2017 YLRN 86
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQ and 8 others 2000 YLR 1138
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQ And Other K.L.R. 2000 Civil Cases 244
- ABDUL GHAFOOR vs C.B.R. 1999 P.C.T.L.R. 393