Pakistan Case Law
1991 SCMR 1913

SHER MUHAMMAD And 4 Others vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA And 8 Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1991 SCMR 1913
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.381 of 1989
Date1991-11-26
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafiur Rahman and Ali Hussain Qazilbash
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan for final disposal regarding a petition involving multiple respondents. During the preliminary proceedings, procedural matters concerning representation and powers of attorney were addressed. The Court Associate reported that the power of attorney from the respondents' side in favour of the counsel was executed by only one person. However, the learned counsel representing the respondents made a categorical statement affirming his authority to appear for respondents Nos.1 to 3, to which the learned counsel for the petitioners expressed no objection. Additionally, it was stated by both counsel that respondents Nos.4 to 7 were pro forma parties who were no longer contesting or interested in the proceedings. Official respondents Nos.8 and 9 were represented by a departmental representative from the office of the D.C.O. Faisalabad, who appeared to assist the Court. With representations and procedural standings clarified and no objections raised, both sides confirmed that the case was complete for final disposal.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a counsel can represent multiple contesting respondents when the power of attorney is executed by only one person, subject to no objection from the opposing counsel?
  • What is the status of pro forma respondents who state they are no longer interested in contesting a petition?
  • Can official respondents be represented by a departmental representative to assist the Court for final disposal?
pro forma partiespower of attorneylegal representationSupreme Court procedurefinal disposal

ORDER

1. The Court Associate has reported that the Power of Attorney from the respondents side in favour of the counsel is only of one person but the learned counsel has made categorical statement that he has the authority to, appear and has put in appearance for respondents No.1 to 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to it. Both the learned counsel have stated that respondents Nos.4 to 7 are pro forma and are not contesting parties nor are they any more interested in contesting the present petition. The respondents Nos.8 and 9 are represented by Mr. Muhammad Siddique, from the office of D.C.O. Faisalabad. He has appeared to assist the Court. He says that he represents the official respondents Nos.8 and 9. He and the learned counsel have stated that the case is otherwise complete for final disposal.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.