BAKSHI DEV RAJ & ANR. versus SUDHIR KUMAR

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 04-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM, H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 815 
" 
BAKSHI DEV RAJ & ANR. 
A 
v. 
SUDHIR KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4641-4642 of 2009) 
1 
AUGUST 04, 2011 
B 
II 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Or. XX/II r. 3 - Compromise of suit - Requirement of -
c 
Held: During the course of hearing, namely, suit or appeal, 
when the parties enter into a compromise, the same should 
be reduced in writing in the form of an instrument and signed 
by the parties . 
., 
D 
Or. XLVll r. 1 (a) - Review Petition - Maintainability- SLP 
filed by the appellants against the Second Appeal -
Dismissal of, as withdrawn, without leave of the Court - Review 
petition filed before the High Court against the judgment in 
Second Appeal - Maintainability of - Held: Even after 
dismissal of an SLP with or without reasons, the aggrieved E 
1 party is entitled to file a review - In view of the language used 
~ 
in Or. XLVll r. 1(a), the Review Petition cannot be dismissed 
i 
on the ground of maintainability - Thus, the review petition 
filed by the appellants was maintainable but in view of Or. Ill 
r. 1 and 4, and in view of the conduct of the appellants in not 
F 
raising any objection as to the act of their counsel except filing 
review petition, the claim of the appellants cannot be 
accepted. 
Advocate/Counsel - Role of - In reporting about the 
G 
,_j 
settlement anived at - Extent and nature of authority to act 
on behalf of client - Held: Terms appended in Vakalatnama 
enable the counsel to perform several acts on behalf of his 
client including withdrawal or compromise/settlement of suit 
815 
H 
816 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 
A or matter pending before the Court - These clauses give 
• 
power to the counsel to act with utmost interest - Counsel has 
power to make a statement on instructions from the party to 
withdraw the appeal - In such circumstance, the counsel 
making a statement on instructions either for withdrawal of 
B appeal or for modification of the decree is well within his 
r 
competence and if really the counsel has not acted in tl1e 
' 
interest of the party or against the instructions of the party, the 
necessary remedy is elsewhere - On facts, there is no 
material to substantiate the plea that the statement of the 
c counsel before the High Court during the course of hearing 
of Second Appeal was not based on any instructions - Even 
otherwise, till filing of the review petition, the appellants did 
not question the conduct of their counsel in making such 
statement in the course of hearing of second appeal by writing 
D a letter or by sending notice disputing the stand taken by their 
counsel - In absence thereof, it cannot be construed that the 
.. 
counsel was debarred from making any statement on behalf 
of the parties - In order to safeguard the present reputation 
of the counsel and to uphold the prestige and dignity of legal 
E profession, it is always desirable to get instructions in writing. 
The plot of respondent is on one side of the land of 
appellant. The respondent filed a suit seeking declaration 
of title and possession of the land and also sought 
• 
decree for permanent injunction restraining the 
F appellants in the suit land. The trial court dismissed the 
· suit. The first appellate court allowed the appeal in favour 
of the respondent. The appellants filed a Second Appeal. 
The High Court framed two questions of law. During the 
course of submissions, both the counsel agreed that 
G without addressing the questions of law so formulated, 
the matter could be settled by modifying the decree 
.... 
impugned in appeal. Thereafter, the Second Appeal was 
disposed of by the High Court by modifying the decree 
with consent of both the parties. The appellant filed SLP 
H and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, 
BAKSHI DEV RAJ & ANR. v. SUDHIR KUMAR 
817 
"' 
the appellants filed a Review Petition before the High 
A 
Court for review of the order passed in Second Appeal 
and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved, the appellants 
filed the instant appeal against the order passed by the 
High Court in Second Appeal and in the Review Petition. 
ct 
8 
• 
The questions which arose for consideration in these 
appeals are whether Review Petition filed before the High 
Court against the judgment in Second Appeal is 
maintainable in view of dismissal of SLP filed against the 
said Second Appeal; that whether the statement of the c 
counsel conveying that the parties have settled and 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.