GUL SHARIF vs FAM JAN and 6 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, which declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of lower forums in favor of the respondents. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner's special attorney possessed the authority under a written power of attorney to offer an oath binding the petitioner to the outcome of a jirga proceeding. The Supreme Court held that upon examination of the power of attorney, the attorney was indeed vested with the requisite authority to take such action, and the petitioner was bound thereby. The Court further noted that the matter pertained to a question of fact concluded concurrently by all courts below, presenting no legal defect to warrant interference. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that a principal is bound by acts lawfully performed by an authorized attorney within the scope of the power of attorney.
- Whether a special attorney is authorized to bind the principal by offering an oath in jirga proceedings based on the terms of a power of attorney?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts absent any legal defect?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, .1.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Peshawir High Court, Peshawar dated 24-10-1988, whereby in constitutional jurisdiction the learned High Court declined to interfere with the findings of the respondents Nos. ,5 to 7 concurrently decided in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
2. ' The background of the case in brief is that a declaratory suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1-4 in the Court of Assistant Commissioner Buner for the land in dispute measuring 41 kanals 16 marlas bearing khasra Nos. 33, 34 and 35 situate in village Tanta. The defendant/petitioner contested the suit. The matter was referred to a Jirga headed by Tehsildar Chagharzai for opinion. During the jirga proceedings the petitioners son and special attorney voluntarily offered an oath to the respondent No, 1 and his witness Umara Khan that if they took oath on the Holy Qur'an, he will withdraw from the suit. Respondent No, 1 and Umara Khan took the oath on which the Jirga gave its award in favour of the respondents Nos. 1-4 and the suit was decreed in their favour by the Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated 29-11-1984. The petitioner filed a review petition which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 8-2-1986. His appeal and revision ' before the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were also dismissed. Constitutional petition of the petitioner before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar was dismissed in limine vide impugned judgment.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record and the findings of the Courts below. The petitioner has lost throughout in all the Courts below. The main contention of the learned counsel before us is that Jumma Gul the son and special attorney of the petitioner was not authorized to administer oath to the defendant party and decide the case under the Oaths Act as no such powers are given to him in the written power of attorney to do so. A perusal of the said power of attorney clearly shows that Jumma Gul attorney has the powers to do so. The relevant portion of the power of attorney in this behalf is given below:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It is apparent from the contents of the said power of attorney that the petitioner has given all those powers which the attorney has used legally in the instant case and the petitioner is now bound to ratify it. The question involved in this petition is essentially with regard to the question of fact which is concluded concurrently by the learned Courts below. We do not find any justification for any interference in this behalf with the impugned judgment, which does not suffer from any legal defect.
4. ' The result is that this petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.