LexRATTAN BAI & ANR. versus RAM DASS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 855 RATTAN BAI & ANR. v. RAM DASS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 1614 of 2012) FEBRUARY 06, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A B SUIT: Withdrawal of - Suit for specific performance by respondent 1 to 3 - Application P-2 filed by Advocate on behalf of respondents that in view of compromise with C defendants, suit be dismissed - Trial court did not pass any order - Application (P-4) made by Advocate on behalf of respondent 1 and 3 that they intended to withdraw the suit - Respondent 1 gave another affidavit (P-5) that the said suit was not filed by him - The counsel of the respondents made D statement that he did not press the applications P-2 and P-4 - In view of the said statement, trial court disposed of the said two applications and posted the matter for evidence - Revision petition by appellant dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held: The issue was not whether the trial court has the power E to permit the withdrawal of the applications filed earlier to the withdrawal of the suit but whether such power was exercised in accordance with law and for the purpose for which it is meant - The mere existence of a power did not justify the exercise of the power - The fact situation on hand did not F justify permitting the respondents 1 and 3 to withdraw their earlier application (P-2) and the statement P-4 as a matter of course in the background of the content of the affidavit (P-5) - The professional conduct of the counsel apart from anything else amounted to the abuse of the process of the court - High G Court erred in dismissing the revision petition of the appellants - Matter remitted to High Court for consideration afresh. Respondents 1 to 3 instituted a suit for specific 855 H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 1 S.C.R. A performance of an agreement of sale of immovable property and for the possession of the said property against the appellants and others. The appellants filed a written statement on 2.12.2006. On 18.12.2007, an application (Annexure P-2) was filed on behalf of B respondents 1 to 3 but signed only by respondents 1 and 3 alone. The application was accompanied by an affidavit of respondent 3, wherein he made a statement that he had compromised the suit with defendants and he did not wish to continue the suit, and, therefore the same be C dismissed. Annexure P-3, purport1!dly a vakalatnama in favour of one 'S', advocate in the said suit was executed on the same day, i.e. 18.12.2007 by the respondents 1 to 3. However, Annexure P-2, application was signed by an advocate by name 'AK' along with respondents 1 and 3. o The trial court did not pass any order either accepting or rejecting the application. On 4.8.2010, a joint statement (Annexure P-4) of respondent 1 and the advocate 'AK' allegedly representing respondents 1 and 3 was recorded by the trial court stating that they intended to E withdraw the suit. On 7.8.2010J respondent 1 gave another affidavit (Annexure P-5) before the trial court to the effect that the said suit was "&ither filed by him nor the said suit bore his signature~. Thereafter, the appellants filed an F application praying that the suit be dismissed in so far as it pertained to respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Another application (Annexure P-8) was filed on 16.9.2010 purportedly on behalf of respondent 1 stating that application dated 18.12.2007 (annexure P-2) and the G statement dated 4.8.2010 (annexure P-4) was wrongly submitted by the Advocate 'AK' and, therefore, respondent 1 be allowed to withdraw the same and pursue the suit. H On 1.2.2011, the trial court recorded the statement by RATIAN BAI & ANR. v. RAM DASS & ORS. 857 one 'MS', Advocate said to be appearing for the A respondents that he did not press the application dated 18.12.2007 and 4.8.2010. Thereupon the trial court passed an order that in view of the statement of the advocate, the applications dated 18.12.2007 and 4.8.2010 were disposed of. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants B filed revision petition before the High Court. The said revision was dismissed. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the C High Court, the Court HELD: 1. The issue was not whether the trial court has the power to permit the withdrawal of the applications filed earlier to the withdrawal of the suit but whether such power was exercised in accordance with
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.