In Brief
A specific performance suit filed against family members was rejected by the trial court but allowed on appeal by the high court. The respondent then filed a review petition claiming he was represented by counsel he had never appointed, as there was no written Vakalatnama (power of attorney). The high court recalled its judgment. The Supreme Court held that duly served parties cannot later challenge judgments solely on the ground of missing formal authorization documents, especially when counsel made no collusive or adverse arguments and the substantive issues were properly adjudicated. The court noted that non-appearance after service would have left the party worse off.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.