In Brief
A property dispute arose where the trial court rejected a specific performance suit and ordered a refund. The plaintiff appealed, and the High Court reversed the trial judgment and granted specific performance. The respondent then sought review, claiming the advocate who represented him before the High Court had no written authority (Vakalatnama). The Supreme Court held that where a party is duly served and chooses to be represented, it cannot later challenge the judgment merely because of absent written authorization. Since no collusive arguments were made and the party could have chosen not to appear, the Court set aside the recall order and upheld the High Court's specific performance decree.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.