LHC rules lawyer’s statement binding on client unless Vakalatnama imposes restrictions

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that an advocate appointed through a Vakalatnama possesses broad implied powers to act on behalf of a client, including withdrawing legal proceedings or entering into a compromise, unless the document expressly restricts such authority.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Rasaal Hasan Syed in Mst. Sarwat Sethi vs Mst. Khalida Parveen and others (PLD 2026 Lahore 575), underscores the importance of clearly defining the limits of an advocate’s authority when appointing legal counsel.

Although the decision was delivered on October 20, 2025, its legal implications extend to litigants and lawyers dealing with civil proceedings across Pakistan.

Dispute Over Withdrawal of Restoration Application

The case originated from a recovery suit involving Rs600,000, which was filed against the appellant. The suit was initially dismissed but was later decreed ex parte by the Additional District Judge, Vehari, on June 15, 2006.

The appellant subsequently filed an application seeking to set aside the ex parte decree. However, her counsel, Zafar Javaid Khan Daha, Advocate, withdrew the application on November 7, 2006.

The appellant later challenged the withdrawal, arguing that her lawyer lacked the authority to take such a step.

The Additional District Judge dismissed her restoration application on January 29, 2011, prompting her to approach the Lahore High Court.

Court Explains Scope of Advocate’s Authority

While dismissing the appeal, the LHC held that the word “act” used in Order III Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) carries a broad meaning and covers actions necessary for conducting legal proceedings.

The court observed that appointing an advocate through a Vakalatnama was not limited to permitting representation before the court. Rather, it empowered counsel to take steps considered necessary for effectively pursuing the client’s case.

The judgment stated that established judicial precedent recognised an advocate’s implied authority to act in the client’s interest, and such actions remained binding unless the Vakalatnama contained express limitations.

The court further held that the authority to compromise or withdraw litigation was inherent in the engagement of counsel, subject to applicable legal principles and restrictions.

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent

The LHC also referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hassan Akhtar vs Azhar Hameed (PLD 2010 SC 657), which recognised that an advocate’s statements on behalf of a client could be binding unless the Vakalatnama specifically restricted the lawyer’s authority to compromise or abandon a claim.

The court noted that the appellant had not categorically denied signing the Vakalatnama or established that it contained any restriction on her counsel’s powers.

It also observed that she had neither impleaded the advocate as a respondent nor filed a complaint before the Punjab Bar Council.

The court found no legal defect in the Additional District Judge’s decision and upheld the dismissal of the restoration application.

Implications for Litigants and Lawyers

The ruling highlights the importance of carefully reviewing a Vakalatnama before signing it.

Clients who wish to prevent their lawyers from withdrawing proceedings, compromising disputes or making concessions should expressly include such restrictions in the document.

For advocates, the judgment reinforces the significance of the authority granted through a Vakalatnama while emphasising the need to act responsibly and in accordance with professional obligations.

The decision is expected to serve as an important reference in future disputes concerning the scope of an advocate’s authority and the binding effect of statements made during legal proceedings.