2004 SCMR 1522

ABDUL QADIR vs THE STATE

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation2004 SCMR 1522

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Criminal Petition No, 103-K of 2002

Date2002-12-11

Judge(s)Rana Bhagwandas, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari

Authored byRana Baghwandas

ResultLeave refused

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Sindh High Court, which had dismissed a criminal revision petition as not pressed by the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner contended that he had not authorized his counsel to withdraw the petition and that the counsel acted beyond the scope of his authority. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that by executing a Vakalatnama (power of attorney) in favor of a counsel, the client grants the counsel the authority to act, appear, and plead on their behalf. This authority inherently includes the implied power to withdraw a cause or settle a dispute on behalf of the client. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had not lodged any complaint against the counsel before any forum. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's order, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that counsel possesses implied authority to withdraw proceedings on behalf of their client.

Questions settled in this judgment

Does the execution of a Vakalatnama grant a counsel the implied authority to withdraw a legal cause on behalf of their client?
Can a client challenge the withdrawal of a petition by their counsel if no complaint has been lodged against the counsel for misconduct?

VakalatnamaCounsel authorityWithdrawal of petitionImplied authorityCriminal revisionLeave to appeal

ORDER

' RANA BAGHWANDAS, J.---Grievance of petitioner is directed against an order of the Sindh High Court whereby a criminal revision petition was dismissed as not pressed by the counsel.

2. It is, inter alia, contended that the petitioner had not instructed the counsel to withdraw the petition before the learned High Court and he acted beyond the scope of authority. We do not agree with the submission of the learned counsel as by executing a power-of attorney/Vakalatnama in favour of a counsel, he is given authority to act, A appear and plead on behalf of his client which would include implied authority to withdraw a cause and to settle the dispute on behalf of the client. Learned counsel admits that no complaint has been lodged against the counsel before any forum. There is thus no ground to interfere with the impugned order which does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

3. Petition is thus dismissed and leave to appeal refused.