In Brief
A partition dispute involving multiple family properties led to a specific performance suit. After the High Court set aside the trial court's rejection and decreed specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant filed a review petition claiming he had never authorized the counsel who appeared on his behalf, as there was no written power of attorney (Vakalatnama). The Supreme Court held that proper service had been effected, and since the defendant chose to appear through counsel (even without written authorization), he could not later seek recall of the judgment. The Court found no collusion in the arguments made and held that the absence of a written Vakalatnama is a curable procedural irregularity, not grounds for recall. The appeal was allowed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.