Jubilee Life Insurance Company Pvt Ltd Vs Arshad Khan

v

Judgment Sheet [N-mHm BES,,ffi H[Sm,, S"*$JRmt BS#HAIH"ARo

TETE}TCTAE T}EPARTMENT "

JUDGMENT

CM No.762-P12023 in FAO No.l59,P12022. Date of hearing 11.06,2025 Jubilee Life Insurance Company (Pvt) Ltd Versus Arshad Khan

Petitioner (s) by: Syed Hamid Ali Shah Advocate.

Respondent(s) by: Mr. Arshad Khan Advocate.

WIOAR AHMAD. J. Through application in hand, Wplicant (appellant) is seeking placing on file documents annexed with CM, which include copy of resolution dated 27.04.2017 of the Board of Directors of Comparry and copy of Article of Association of the Compdny, besides praying for allowing the comparry to sign memorandum of appeal through its autho nzed person.

2.The main appeal has been arising from order dated 28.05.2022 of learned Insurance Tribunal at Peshawar. Memo of

V

appeal has been signed by one Siraj Hussain Advocate, which was also bearing an affidavit of one Suleman son of Noor Sani Gul, who had affirmed on behalf of company and declared on oath that the contents of appeal had been true and correct to the best of his knowledge. The memo of aPPeal was accompanied by impugned judgment, copies of relevant documents besides the Authority letter where-under Managing Director/ CEO of company namely Javed Ahmad son of Bashir Ahmad had authorized Suleman Khan son of Noor Sani Gul, Compliance Officer at Jubilee Life Insurance Company (P\rt) Ltd to pursue the case before the Insurance Tribrural, Civil Courts, Family Courts and Peshawar High Court. He had also been authorized to initiate I filelv eri ff/submit suits/ plaints/written statements/ writ petitions/ applications/ replies or other things or action required to be done and ancillary thereto on behalf of Jubilee Life Insurance Company (P\rt) Ltd. The Wakalat Nama (Power of Attorney) had been executed

v

in favour of Arshad Farooq Advocate, M.Mohsin Malik Advocate, Hassan liaz Cheema Advocate and Syed Hamid Ali Shah Advocate. It is important to note that the lawyer namely Siraj Hussain Advocate had though been representing Company in the original proceedings before Insurance Tribunal but he had not filed separate Wakalat Nama in his favour alongwith Memorandum of Appeal. In such backdrop of facts, appellant has filed instant CM seeking permission to place on file the documents mentioned therein besides a permission for signing the Memorandum of appeal through its authori zed officer or its representative. Respondent has also filed reply to the CM, opposing the stance of applicant. It has mainly been contended in the reply that said application has been filed after raising objection by respondent in open court regarding resolution and verification signature and Order XLI Rule 27 has been clear about submission of evidence, documents at

V

appellate stage therefore additional evidence or documents cannot be allowed to fill lacuna of either party. It has also been stated that an unsuccessful party cannot be allowed to adduce additional documents at belated stage as production of documents has not been a matter of right.

3.Arguments heard and record

perused.

4.Perusal of record reveals that it was apparent on face of record that appeal had been signed by Siraj Hussain Advocate, who had not been specifically authorized by Board of Directors of the Company or its CEO or other authori zed officer through a specific instument of authorization. One Suleman Ahmad son of Noor Sani Gul had been authorized by CEO of the Company but he has not signed memo of appeal, albeit he has endorsed an affidavit in support of contents of appeal. The appellant has filed copies of Article of Association where in Paru 99, appointment of Chief Executive Officer of the

V

company has been provided and in Para 6 his powers and duties have been prescribed. sub Para 6, 8 and 12 of said Para are relevant for our present discotrse, same ate therefore reproduced herein for ready reference:

*(6) To commence, prosecute or enforce and to defend, answer or oppose any suit or other legal proceeding whether civil or criminal in any Court or Tribunal where- so-€v€r or before any Government touchtng upon matter in which the Company is now or may hereafter be interested or concerned, and also d the said attorney shall so think lit to compromise, reler to arbitration, abandon or submit to judgement in any such action or proceeding aforesaid;

(S)To appoint and retoin Solicitors, Vakils, Pleaders and Mukhtars and others for time to time and to revoke such appointments and retainers ond again to appoint as the particular occasion may require;

(12)To delegate all or any of the powers hereby conferred upon him to any manager, secretary or other ofricer of the Company as he ffiay, from time to time, think tit;

5.Alongwith CM a general

resolution of the Board held on April27 ,2017 had also been annexed at page 50 wherein Mr.Javed Ahmad, Chief Executive Officer of the Company has been authorized for signing of pleadings and documents for filing before

V

Hon'ble Sindh High Court and other competent Courts of law. In case of his non availability and absence, other offtcers of the company including Mr. Junaid Atrmad, Chief Manager Claims, had been authorized to sign and veriff various documents relating to litigation matters. Mr. Junaid Ahmad had infact endorsed the Power of Attorney filed with Memo of appeal but said power of attorney was also not possessing name of counsel who had filed the Memorandum of Appeal. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while rendering its judgment in case of "SDO/A.M. Hasht Nagri Sub-Division, PESCO, Peshawar and others Vs Khawazan Zad" reported as PLD 2023 SC 174 has held that Memorandum of appeal or a revlslon petition should be signed by appellant and a duly appointed pleader as per Rule 1 of Order )(LI CPC and same could be presented by the appellant or Pleader as per Rule I of Order III CPC. It was also held therein that Rules 14 & l5 of Order VI as well

V

as Rule 1 of Order XXIX CPC as to signing and veriffing of pleadings like plaint and written statement, was not applicable to Memorandum of Appeals and Revision Petition. Having said that it was firther laid down therein that any defect or omission in signing, veriffing or presenting a pleading or Memorandum of Appeal or revision would not affect merits of the case or jurisdiction of a Court and should therefore be taken as a curable irregularity of proceedings. Regarding legal proceedings on behalf of Corporation it was held that any defect in the authority of a person to sign or veriff the pleadings in a suit (by or against Corporation) or in instituting or defending such a suit (by presenting appropriate pleadings) or in signing or filing of Memorandum of Appeal or revlslon petition by a Corporation, could also be cured at any stage of proceedings. Relevant observations of the august Court rendered in said judgment are also reproduced herein:

V

9.Having examined the scoPe of the above-cited rules of procedure contained in the C,P,C., ute must reiterate the principle, which is by now well settled, that tthe proper place of procedure in any system of administration of iustice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their rights ... Any system, which by giving elfect to the form and not to the substance defeats substantive righ*, is defective to that extent.'E The courts, thus, always lean in favour of adiudicating the matters on merits rather than stifling the proceedings on procedaral formalities, The rules of procedure are meant to facilitate the court proceedings lor enforcing the rights of litigants, not to trap them tn procedural technicalities for frustrating their rights. They are the tools to advance the cause otiustice and cannot be used to cause the miscaruiage of justice. The ultimate obiect of securing the ends of justice, therefore, outweighs the insistence on strict adherence to such rules. The same is the purpose of the rules of procedure discussed obove. Any defect or omission in signing and verifying, or presenting, a pleading (plaint or written statement) or a memorandum of appeal or revision petition does not affect the merits of the case or the jarisdiction of the court and is therefore taken to be such an irregularity which con be cured at any stage of the proceedings.e Likewise, ony defect in the outhority of a person to sign and verify o pleading ftled in o suit by or against o corporation, or to institute or defend such a suit by presenting that pleading to the court, or in signing or tiling of a memorandum of appeal or revision petition by a corporation, con also be cured at anY stage of the proceedings,Io

10.It is for this reoson that section 99, C.P.C. provides inter alia that no decree is to be reversed nor is anY case to be remanded in appeal on account of any error, defect or irregularity tn ony proceedings in the suit that has not affected the merits of the case or the jurisdiction of the court. Similarly, it is

not every irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction by a lower court that calls for interference in revisional iurisdiction under section 115(1)(c), C.P.C. but only the material irregularity, and the material irregulority is that which affects the merits of the cose or the iurisdiction of the cottft.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has authoritatively settled a question that a body of Corporate could not be penalized for defect in signing or filing a Memorandum of Appeal and that it could be allowed to be rectified at any stage of proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while giving its earlier judgment in case of ttMuhammad Anwar Khan and 5 others Vs Chaudhry Riaz Ahmad and 5 others" reported as PLD 2002 SC 491 while relying on an earlier judgment in case of "Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State property in Pakistan Vs Khuda Yar and another" reported as PLD 1975 SC 678 had also held that mere technicality unless offering an

unsurnountable hurdle, could not be allowed to defeat the ends ofjustice and that the trivial issue of non-signing of written statement

l0 v

could have been allowed to be remedied by allowing the party to sign the written statement. In case in hand also the objection as to non-signing of memo of appeal was technical in nature because intention of the competent officer of the company to file appeal has sufficiently been determinable from available record. CEO/ Managing Director of the company namely Javed Ahmad had duly authorized Suleman Ahmad, Compliance Officer of said company to defend legal proceedings before Insurance Tribunal as well as before this Court by executing a specific authority letter. Under the Article of Association, CEO of the company was having the authority to authonze lodging of legal proceedings as well as its defence thereof. Learned counsel representing the applicant also produced copy of Form-29 of the company reflecting the name of Javed Ahmad as its Chief Executive Officer. Said Suleman Ahmad had also endorsed an affidavit on the appeal as well as on the

ll

V

accompanying application with appeal Keeping technical objection aside, it was not a case that the Principal Officer of the company had not authorized filing of appeal or pursuing of same on behalf of the company thereof before this Court. The lapses or irregularities were therefore technical in nature which was neither affecting competency of the person pursuing appeal jurisdiction of this Court or merits of the case and such defect can squarely be interpreted as mere illegality in the proceedings as per ratio of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of SDO, PESCO supra. This Court would therefore allow the petitioner to rectiff the defect in such proceedings. It is a different matter that the inconvenience borne by other party may be compensated in terms of money by imposing a reasonable cost in the circumstances of the case.

6 In light of what has been discussed above, instant application (CM No.762 -P12023) is allowed to the effect that

t2

V

documents annexed with application are allowed to be placed on file and appellants are allowed to file an amended Memorandum of appeal in accordance with law. For compensating the other party cost of Rs.100,000/- (one hundred thousand) are imposed on the appellant which shall be deposited in account of Nazir of this Court within 60 days for onward payment to respondent.

Announced.

JUDGE

rUDGE

",4Qoyan BD (DB) Hon'bh Mn tudoc Sycd Arshod AA & Dlntufuc Vlqu Ahmad'