| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 442 = 1990 CLC 301 |
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeals Nos.41 and 45 of 1986, decided on 30th November, 1989.
Presented By: Before Abdul Majeed Mallick C J
Aleem-ud-Din Chaudhry and Muhammad Bashir Inquilani for Appellants No.l and 2 (in Civil Appeal No.41 of 1986 and for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No.45 of 1986). Muhammad Yusuf Malik for
Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1986 and for Appellant in Civil Appeal No.45 of 1986).
Civil Appeals Nos.41 and 45 of 1986, decided on 30th November, 1989.
Presented By: Before Abdul Majeed Mallick C J
Aleem-ud-Din Chaudhry and Muhammad Bashir Inquilani for Appellants No.l and 2 (in Civil Appeal No.41 of 1986 and for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal No.45 of 1986). Muhammad Yusuf Malik for
Respondent (in Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1986 and for Appellant in Civil Appeal No.45 of 1986).
MUHAMMAD MUNSHI and another--Appellants
VERSUS
Mst. RAKIYA BI--Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----OYI, Rr. 14 & 15--OFnission to sign and verify pleadings--Effect--Omission to sign and verify pleadings is only an irregularity curable at any stage of proceedings and not an illegality likely to result in dismissal of suit. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----0. III, Rr. 2 & 4--Appointment of counsel---Relationship of client and counsel--Relationship of client and counsel having been recognised at level of relationship of principal and agent, when counsel as an agent has acted on behalf of client, even though he was not authorized in the prescribed manner for acting as such at relevant time, client, held, was vested with authority to ratify act of his counsel retrospectively.--[Counsel and client]. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----0. III, Rr. 2 & 4--Appointment of counsel---When a counsel had acted in a case for party even in absence of `Vakalatnama' or signatures on `Vakalatnama', unless his authority was denied by client, omission of filing `Vakalatnama' or securing signatures on it, held, would be considered merely an irregularity and not an illegality and presumption would be in favour of engaging counsel to act on behalf of party. [Counsel and client]. Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din's case PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 42; Muhammad Khaliq's case 1987 CLC 1366; Nargis Begum's case 1983 CLC 2923; Muhammad Sarwar's case 1980 CLC 946; Muhammad Bibi's case 1986 MLD 771; Khayam Film's case 1982 CLC 1275; Ibrahim Ismail's case PLD 1983 Kar. 154; Hyderabad Import Export Company's case AIR 1958 Andh. Pra. 652; Dahyabhai Girdhasdas v. Bobaji Dahyaji AIR 1953 Born. 28; AIR 1960 Ca1.61; Fazal Hussain's case PLD 1982 SC (AJ&K) 89 and Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government's case PLD 1984 SC (A.1&K) 13 ref. Pre-emption--- ----Price of pre-empted land--Determination of--Price of pre-empted land as claimed by vendee and determined by Trial Court found support from certificate of Sub-Registrar who had registered sale-deed--Pre-emptor, in rebuttal, produced various copies of sale-deeds executed by different persons in respect of different lands, but he failed to adduce…