Skip to content


Mohammad Sulaiman and anr. Vs. Sh. Mazhar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All320a
AppellantMohammad Sulaiman and anr.
RespondentSh. Mazhar and ors.
Excerpt:
.....recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised..........also to appoint a substitute for himself it follows that he was given authority' to appoint a pleader.4. apart from this it is also quite clear that as he held a power-of-attorney authorizing him to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the two defendants he was their recognized agent as defined in rule 2 (a) order 3. a pleader appointed by 'a recognized agent has authority to appear for the defendants and to act on their behalf under rule 4 of the same order.5. the circumstance also shows that muhammad akbar although he did not sign the application for reference to arbitration had agreed to it. the actual signature of a party is not required by schedule 2 to rule 1. the application is therefore dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

Sulaiman, J.

1. This is an application in revision from an order of the Court below directing that a decree be prepared in terms of an award. The only point urged in revision is that the reference to arbitration was not signed by a vakil duly appointed on behalf of the applicants Muhammad Sulaiman and Muhammad Usman. The applicants were defendants in the suit and on their behalf their pairokar Muhammad Akbar who held a general power-of-attorney appeared. It was Muhammad Akbar who had signed the vakalatnama by which Mr. Abdul Ali was appointed their pleader. The agreement for reference to arbitration was signed by this pleader. The Court below after examining the general power-of-attorney, has come to the conclusion that Muhammad Akbar had full authority to appoint a pleader to act for the defendants.

2. It may be doubtful whether a revision would lie on the ground that the Court below has misinterpreted this document. The only way in which the learned advocate for the applicants urges that a revision would lie is by saying that this error of law amounts to a material irregularity in accepting a reference not consented to by all the parties. In the view which we take of the merits of the revision it is not necessary to decide this preliminary objection.

3. In the first place we agree that the Court below is right in holding that the general terms of the power-of-attorney are wide enough to include authority to appoint a pleader. Muhammad Akbar was authorized to appear in Court on behalf of the defendants and to prosecute or defend a suit; he was also authorized to appoint substitutes for him and to enter into contracts or agreements for effectuating any of the purposes mentioned in the power-of-attorney. He was also given express authority to submit disputes to arbitration and to compromise all actions. He therefore had authority to appear in person and also to appoint a substitute for himself It follows that he was given authority' to appoint a pleader.

4. Apart from this it is also quite clear that as he held a power-of-attorney authorizing him to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of the two defendants he was their recognized agent as defined in Rule 2 (a) Order 3. A pleader appointed by 'a recognized agent has authority to appear for the defendants and to act on their behalf under Rule 4 of the same order.

5. The circumstance also shows that Muhammad Akbar although he did not sign the application for reference to arbitration had agreed to it. The actual signature of a party is not required by Schedule 2 to Rule 1. The application is therefore dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //