NASIB KAUR Vs. CHANAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question raised in this revision petition is, could final decree be passed on the application moved by the Attorney after the death of the Attorney ? The application has been dismissed solely on the ground that since the Attorney had died, no final decree could be passed, as the counsel engaged by him to represent the principal is left with no authority to continue the proceedings. It is not disputed that another Power of Attorney has already been filed on behalf the Principal also, though it has been filed after the impugned decision.

(2.) THE learned trial Court relied on Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act to hold, that on the death of the agent, the agency came to an end. It was further observed that fresh Power of Attorney executed in favour of Amrit Kaur was invalid. "resultantly, her appointing Mr. D. B. Bhaila, Advocate, was also not valid and he cannot be permitted to prosecute the case. As a consequence of the above finding, it was observed that there is nobody to represent the decree-holder to prosecute the application for passings final decree. Even the prayer for time to present the decree holder personally or her duly authorised Attorney was declined.

(3.) THIS Court in Business Known as Girshan Industrial Co. (Private) Ltd v. Interchem Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. , 1970 Current L. J, 387, observed as under :" held that the Attorney is merely an agent of the Principal and what he does, he does for the principal. So long as the principal is alive, any act done by the attorney or his counsel is a valid act and continues to be valid irrespective of the fact whether the attorney is alive or dead. But the counsel for the attorney cannot act if the principal is dead. "