Special Power of Attorney Limited to One Debt Is Not a General Agency Under Procedural Rules

A power of attorney limited to realising one specified mortgage debt, even if it authorised suing, settling, receiving process and giving receipts, was held not to be a general power of attorney under the relevant procedural rule. The decisive test was whether the authority extended to all business, or all business of a particular kind, rather than being confined to a single transaction or special occasion. Because the instrument empowered the agent only for one specific recovery matter, it was a special power of attorney. The appeal failed and the decree against the appellant was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a power of attorney authorising the holder to realise one specified mortgage debt by suing, settling, receiving process and giving receipts was a general power of attorney within the meaning of Rule III of the Rules made under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Analysis: The Rule permitted appearance by persons holding general powers of attorney from non-resident parties. The decisive distinction was between an authority to transact all business, or all business of a particular kind, and an authority confined to a single transaction or special occasion. The document in question empowered the agent only to deal with one mortgage debt and to do all acts necessary for its recovery. That authority was therefore limited to one particular business and did not amount to a general agency, even though several acts were authorised within that limited transaction.

Conclusion: The power of attorney was a special power of attorney and not a general power of attorney. The appeal failed and the decree against the appellant was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An authority confined to the conduct of one specific transaction or business, though it permits several acts in relation to that transaction, is a special power of attorney and not a general power of attorney.

---