Ramasrey and others Vs. Deputy Director, Consolidation, Distt. Faizabad and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1723 of 1998 S.L.P. (C) No. 9890 of 1996
Petitioner: Ramasrey and others
Respondent: Deputy Director, Consolidation, Distt. Faizabad and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1723 of 1998 S.L.P. (C) No. 9890 of 1996
Judges: G.B. Pattanaik & M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 23, 1998
Head Note:
LAND REFORM LAWS
Compromise – High Court disposing of writ on the basis of compromise – Advocate who effected the alleged compromise found to have acted without the authority or concurrence of appellants nor had a legal vakalatnama – Appellants challenging decision of High Court. Held as the compromise was not legal High Court not correct in disposing the writ on the basis of the compromise. High Court directed to consider the matter on merits.
Compromise – High Court disposing of writ on the basis of compromise – Advocate who effected the alleged compromise found to have acted without the authority or concurrence of appellants nor had a legal vakalatnama – Appellants challenging decision of High Court. Held as the compromise was not legal High Court not correct in disposing the writ on the basis of the compromise. High Court directed to consider the matter on merits.
Advocates Act, 1961
Advocate – Professional misconduct – Civil dispute – Advocate arranging compromise without the authority of the party – No vakalatnama executed in favour of Advocate – Finding recorded by judge that the said compromise was not effected legally. Held it is open to the party to approach Bar Council for appropriate action against the advocate.
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The order of the High Court dispensing of the writ petition on the basis of a compromise is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. It was averred in this Court that the compromise was entered into between the parties by the lawyer Shri Kailash Nath Srivastava without any authority from the appellants and the appellants did not execute any vakalatnama in favour of the said Advocate. In view the allegations made, this Court by order dated 15-4-1996 directed the District Judge, Faizabad to hold an enquiry and submit a report as to whether the appellants authorised Shri Kaliash Nath Srivastava to enter into the compromise and whether the appellants were put on notice of the compromise by the Advocate Shri Srivastava. Pursuance to the aforesaid order, the learned District Judge gave opportunity to the parties and on the basis of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the appellants did not authorise Shri Srivastava to enter into the compromise on their behalf in the writ petition. He also further found that the appellants did not sign the compromise dated 3-4-1991 and did not execute vakalatnama in favour of Shri Srivastawa so as to authorise him to verify the contents of the compromise. Since the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the compromise and in view of the finding of the District Judge that the compromise was entered into by the Advocate without any authority the impugned order of the High Court disposing of the writ petition as well as the order passed on the application for review cannot be sustained, and we accordingly set aside the same. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the conduct of the respondents who were the petitioners before the High Court in the writ petition dis-entitle them to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed by this Court and the matter may not be remitted to the High Court for re-disposal on merits. Though there is sufficient force in the aforesaid contention but we think in appropriate for the High Court to deal with this question and pass appropriate orders thereon. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition No. 514 of 1984 is remitted to the High Court for re-disposal in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. So far as the role played by the Advocate Shri Kailash Nath Srivastawa is concerned it will be open for the appellants to approach the Bar Council for any appropriate action. In view of the conduct of the respondents as found from the report of the District Judge this is a fit case where the appellants should be entitled to cost and we accordingly allow the appeal with the cost of Rs. 5,000.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The order of the High Court dispensing of the writ petition on the basis of a compromise is subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. It was averred in this Court that the compromise was entered into between the parties by the lawyer Shri Kailash Nath Srivastava without any authority from the appellants and the appellants did not execute any vakalatnama in favour of the said Advocate. In view the allegations made, this Court by order dated 15-4-1996 directed the District Judge, Faizabad to hold an enquiry and submit a report as to whether the appellants authorised Shri Kaliash Nath Srivastava to enter into the compromise and whether the appellants were put on notice of the compromise by the Advocate Shri Srivastava. Pursuance to the aforesaid order, the learned District Judge gave opportunity to the parties and on the basis of the materials on record came to the conclusion that the appellants did not authorise Shri Srivastava to enter into the compromise on their behalf in the writ petition. He also further found that the appellants did not sign the compromise dated 3-4-1991 and did not execute vakalatnama in favour of Shri Srivastawa so as to authorise him to verify the contents of the compromise. Since the writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the compromise and in view of the finding of the District Judge that the compromise was entered into by the Advocate without any authority the impugned order of the High Court disposing of the writ petition as well as the order passed on the application for review cannot be sustained, and we accordingly set aside the same. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the conduct of the respondents who were the petitioners before the High Court in the writ petition dis-entitle them to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed by this Court and the matter may not be remitted to the High Court for re-disposal on merits. Though there is sufficient force in the aforesaid contention but we think in appropriate for the High Court to deal with this question and pass appropriate orders thereon. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the Writ Petition No. 514 of 1984 is remitted to the High Court for re-disposal in accordance with law by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. So far as the role played by the Advocate Shri Kailash Nath Srivastawa is concerned it will be open for the appellants to approach the Bar Council for any appropriate action. In view of the conduct of the respondents as found from the report of the District Judge this is a fit case where the appellants should be entitled to cost and we accordingly allow the appeal with the cost of Rs. 5,000.
