- Dowry articles , recovery of --- Special oath --- Suit for recovery was consolidated with two other matters ( for recovery of maintenance allowance and custody of minors ) pending adjudication before Family Court and in consequences additional issues were framed -

 2023 MLD 483

Family Courts Act ( XXXV of 1964 ) , S. 17 ( 2 ) --- Powers of Attorney Act ( VII of 1882 ) , S. 2 --- Dowry articles , recovery of --- Special oath --- Suit for recovery was consolidated with two other matters ( for recovery of maintenance allowance and custody of minors ) pending adjudication before Family Court and in consequences additional issues were framed --- During cross - examination , an offer was made by petitioner's counsel qua decision of the matter through special oath on the Holy Quran by petitioner ;of her which offer was not accepted by Respondent / wife , instead , signified her willingness to state on respondent / wife ... oath by putting her hands on the Holy Quran and on the heads children that her dowry articles were lying at defendant's house , which proposal was accepted by the petitioner's counsel - On the adjourned date petitioner moved an application that he did not instruct his counsel to make offer to respondent / wife for taking her special oath and that such offer was under misconception --- Petitioner's application was dismissed and the statement of respondent / wife was recorded under special oath and her suit for recovery of dowry articles no contended that was consequently decreed --- Petitioner specific direction was given by him to his counsel for resolution of the controversy qua dowry articles through special oath ; that his counsel was not authorized either to make any offer to other side or to accept any such offer ; that whole proceedings regarding offer and so - called acceptance by his counsel took place in his absence ; and that procedure adopted by learned trial court for taking special oath was against the law --- Held , that document of the power of attorney contained the phrase :

Such vernacular expression beyond an iota of ambiguity evinced the intention of petitioner conferring the power to his counsel for making statement qua decision of matter on oath --- Petitioner was bound by an act / undertaking of his counsel for the simple reason that his counsel was holding a valid authority of power of to act on his behalf on the basis of contents attorney executed by him in favour of his counsel --- Proceedings carried out by the Judge Family Court were in accordance with the provisions of Ss . 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act , 1873 --- Any act required / authorized to be done by a party to a suit could be done by his recognized agent provided the act would fall generally within the scope of the latter's authority --- Statement of respondent / wife was recorded on special oath in pursuance of an offer that was agreed by counsel for the petitioner which offer when accepted , would become agreement in the nature of contract the nature of contract which was binding on both the parties --- Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly .