Sr.

Citation Rule
No.
1 Iqbal Ahmad Sabri The presumption as to the authenticity and genuineness of power of
v. Fayyaz Ahmad, attorney has been attached under the provisions of Article 95 of
2007 C L C 1089 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order that every document purporting to be a
power of attorney and to have been executed before the
authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court, Judge, Magistrate,
British Counsel or Vice-Counsel or representative of Federal
Government, was so executed and authenticated. The
authentication is not merely attestation, but something more. It
means that the person authenticating has assumed himself of the
identity of the person who has signed the instrument as well as the
fact of execution. It is for this reason that a power of attorney
bearing the authentication of notary public or an authority
mentioned in Article 95 is taken as "sufficient", evidence of the
execution of the instrument by the person, who appears to be the
executant on face of it. This provision of Article 95 of Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984, is mandatory and it is open to the Court to
presume that all the necessary requirements for the proper
execution of the power of attorney have been duly fulfilled. In this
context reference can be made to the cases of Wall. Muhammad
Chaudhry v. Jamaluddin Chaudhri AIR 1950 All. 534, Jugrej Singh and
another v. Jaswant Singh AIR 1971 SC 761 and Right Society v. Indian
Morning Restaurant AIR 1939 Bom. 347.
2 Sahibzada Anwar As far as applicability of Article 95 is concerned it only raises a
Hamid v. Topworth presumption if attested in accordance with the provisions of the said
Investments Ltd. Article, but it does not requir that a power of attorney to be valid must
be attested by the persons mentioned in the said section. The powers
of attorney on behalf of respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 bear a notarial
stamp but it is in the language which is not understandable because
these were attested in a foreign country in a language other than
English. In any case unless respondents Nos.1, 3 to 5 had disputed the
authority of their counsel to represent them, the objection of the
learned counsel for the petitioner based on Article 95 is not
sustainable. Power of attorney was admissible
3

Sr. Citation Rule

No.
1 S.I.S. Corporation Indeed, when Writ Petition No.295/2017 was filed on 26.01.2017,
(PVT) LTD v. the copy of the said authorization dated 24.01.2017, filed along
Federation Of with the said writ petition was neither notarized nor attested by
Pakistan, Pakistan's diplomatic mission. However, before the judgment was
2018 CLD 48 & reserved, the original authorization dated 24.01.2017 duly
2018 PLD 150 notarized and attested by the third secretary of Embassy of
 ISLAMABAD Pakistan at Paris, was brought on record. This having been done, I
do not find any merit in the said objection raised by the learned
counsel for respondent No.9. At times a company incorporated
abroad and having a place of its business in Pakistan has to invoke
the jurisdiction of the Court in Pakistan on an emergent basis. In
such circumstances to require such a foreign entity to have a
power of attorney or a board resolution notarized and attested in
the foreign country and then file such a document along with the
petition or suit instituted in Pakistan, would be unreasonable and
inequitable. As long as in the pleadings it is pleaded that the legal
proceedings are being instituted with proper
authorization/authority and that during the proceedings such
authorization/authority, obtained prior to the institution of the
proceedings, but notarized and consularized subsequently, is
brought on the record, the proceedings cannot be considered to
have been wrongfully instituted.
2 Surayya Kausar V. In this context, it was contended that power of attorney duly
Muhammad Asmat authenticated, attested and registered even subsequently was valid
Ullah, in view of the provisions contained in Article 95 of the
2000 MLD 507, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which raised a presumption that
Lahore. such document was executed and authenticated in accordance
with law and as shown on its face. Similarly reference was made
to section 196 of the Contract Act, 1872, whereby it was open for
a principal to ratify the acts done or omissions made by any
person on his behalf. It was, therefore, urged that even if there
was any lacuna in the execution of the initial power of attorney,
but stood removed after the execution of subsequent power of
attorney duly authenticated and registered in Pakistan, which
amounted to an express ratification by the principal of the
institution of suit filed by his agent. As such there was no ground
for the rejection of the plaint on that plea.

3 China Machinery It may be observed here that the provisions of Article 95 of the
Engineering Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are mandatory in nature and the
Corporation Court can only presume a power of attorney as valid if all the
(CMEC) v. Azad necessary requirements for the proper execution of the power of
Jammu and attorney have been duly fulfilled.
Kashmir Council The power of attorney executed in the foreign country must be
Board of Revenue, authenticated by any of the authorities mentioned in the Qanun-e-
2017 CLC 1519, Shahadat Order, 1984 and it should be attested by a competent
SC (AJ&K). officer of Embassy of Pakistan. In absence of fulfilling the
requisite requirements, the Court cannot presume that the power
of attorney was validly executed.
The study of the power of attorney further postulates that the same
has not been authenticated by any of the authorities mentioned in
Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Thus, in such
 situation, it can safely be concluded that the power of attorney
under consideration has not been authenticated as provided under
law, therefore, it cannot be said to be a valid power of attorney
and the same does not confer any right upon Mr.Su Guanglei to
file writ petition before the High Court or appeal before this
Court.

4 Muhammad Maroof The witness who appeared on behalf of the defendant as attorney
Ahsan v. Beach of the partners of the defendant firm has admitted in his cross-
Developers, examination that the Power of Attorney executed in his favour has
2011 MLD 36, not been attested by the Pakistan Embassy. It is mandatory
Karachi. requirement that a power of attorney executed in a foreign
territory is to be attested by the Pakistan Embassy/Consulate in
that country otherwise it has no evidentiary value.

5 Abdul Sattar v. Lastly the cause of the petitioners gravitates upon a general power
Mian Muhammad of attorney Exh. P1, there are major discrepancies in its execution.
Attique, It was executed in United Kingdom without observing the legal or
2010 YLR 616, codal formalities of municipal law practised there. It also is not
Lahore. tenable in law in Pakistan as it has not been endorsed properly nor
was signed by the Court or vice counsel as required under Article
95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, therefore, it is legally
ineffective. Consequently, the suit was improperly filed and
rightly dismissed.

6 Abdul Sattar v. There is nothing on record to prove the due execution of power of
Muhammad Iqbal, attorney in England as required and stated. This condition is
2009 PLD 407, further qualified by Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,
Lahore. 1984, it states that every power of attorney executed should be
certified and authenticated by a Notary Public or any Court,
Judge, Magistrate, Pakistan Consul or Vice-Consul or
representative of the Federal Government. The perusal of power
of attorney on these premises shows that it has not been endorsed
or issued by any of the said authorities. There is no seal of any
Notary Public, nor certification or endorsement qua the fact that
power of attorney was signed by the executant in presence of
authorized official, therefore, it has no legal validity under Article
95. Reference Qurban Hussain and others v. Hukam Dad 1984
PSC 939 = PLD 1984 SC (AJK) 157

7 Azra Saeed V. Further, the signature of executants of power of attorney is not

Raees Khan, authenticated by High Commission of Pakistan at Dacca as is
2009 CLD 779, required by Article 95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, inasmuch as the
Karachi. authentication that has been made is only in respect of signatures
of Suhail Majeed Malik, the purported attorney, and not that of
executant. The power of attorney on the basis of which the
 agreement to sell is said to have been signed has no presumption
in its favour of its correctness nor on the face, the signature of
attorney on the power of attorney and that on the agreement to sell
at all tally or seem to be of one person."

Though the signatures of the attorney on the power of attorney

and on the sub power of attorney appear to be the same but the
very fact that power of attorney is not authenticated as per Article
95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, no benefit can be given to the sub power
of attorney.

8 Muhammad Yaseen It is further admitted that his Power of Attorney is neither a

Siddiqui V. registered document nor attested by any authority. These admitted
Tahseen Jawaid facts clearly indicate that the Power of Attorney having been
Siddiqui, allegedly executed in a foreign country has not been duly attested
2003 MLD 319, or endorsed by the Embassy of Pakistan or the concerned
Karachi. Consulate in United States of America. This is, in fact, a worthless
document and would hardly create an authority. Reliance in this
context may be placed on S.M. Khalil v. Biswanath Basak (1971
DLC (Rev.) 62). The defendant has never made an attempt to
rectify this irregularity. It is interesting to note that the written
statement, wherein the plea of gift has been taken was not signed
by the defendant himself but it bears the signature of the said Prof.
Dr. Yahya Ali Ahmed Farooqui claiming as attorney of the
defendant. As already pointed out there is no legal and valid
document to constitute him an attorney, therefore, the written
statement would also suffer from the same irregularity.

9 MUHAMMAD Power of attorney executed in UK. The Court held:

MEHRBAN v. We have carefully gone through the power of attorney. It has not
SADRUD DIN, been authenticated by any of the authorities mentioned in the
1995 C L C 1541, section i.e. Notary Public, any Court, Judge, Magistrate,
SC AJK. (Pakistan) Cousul or Vice-Consul.
In view of the abovementioned provisions it becomes absolutely
clear that in the absence of such authentication by any of the
authorities referred in section 95 of Qaunoon-e-Shahadat and
sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act the power of attorney
cannot be relied upon, as 'no presumption can be drawn with
respect to the due execution of the document. Our aforesaid view
is fortified by the authority `Qurban Hussain and 2 others v.
Hukam Dad' (PLD 1984 SC (AJ&K) 157), wherein it was
observed:--

10 Ziauddin Siddiqui It can hardly be disputed that a power of attorney in order to raise
v. Mrs. Rana and sustain a presumption, under Article 95 of Qanun-e-Shahadat,
Sultana, 1984, of its execution before and authentication by inter alia, a
1990 CLC 645, Pakistan Consul or Vice Consul has to be so executed or
Karachi. authenticated. For a person executing such power in order to
qualify for the referred presumption, under Pakistan Law, the
exercise is required to have been gone into at the Pakistan
Embassy in the United Kingdom. This, obviously, is not the
position here and, therefore, no such presumption as referred
arises. Mr. Zia Oureshi, for the defendant No.l, has, on the point
referred me to the cases of S.M. Khaleel v. Biswanath Basak
(1971 D.L.C. (Rev) 62) and Ourban Hussain and others v.
Hukumdad (P L D 1984 A J K 157), in the first of which, a power
of attorney executed before a Notary public in India was treated to
be a worthless document and devoid of any validity, whereas in
the second, it was held to require registration in order to qualify as
a power under sections 32 and 33 of the Registration Act, 1908.
Now, as has been seen above, if a power of attorney is not
executed before and authenticated by one of the persons named in
Article 95 of the Oanun-e-Shahadat, and the list includes Notaries
Public, all that happens in that the presumption under that Article
does not arise and an authority, acting under Pakistan Law, may
decline to act upon it.