1. Challenge to High Court order disposing of writ petition based on a compromise allegedly entered into by an advocate without authorization or vakalatnama from the appellants. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 372
Supreme Court Of India
Decided On : (March 23, 1998)
RAMASREY
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION DISTT. FATZABAD
An advocate entering into a compromise without authority from the clients renders the impugned order unsustainable.
Headnote:
DELAY - CHALLENGE TO HIGH COURT ORDER BASED ON COMPROMISE - The court set aside the order of the High court disposing of the writ petition on the basis of a compromise, as it was found that the compromise was entered into by the advocate without any authority from the appellants. The case was remitted to the High court for redisposal, and the appellants were entitled to costs.
Fact of the Case:
The High court disposed of the writ petition on the basis of a compromise, which was challenged in this appeal. An enquiry was conducted, and it was found that the appellants did not authorize the advocate to enter into the compromise on their behalf.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the order of the High court and remitted the case for redisposal, while also allowing the appellants to approach the Bar council for appropriate action against the advocate. The appellants were entitled to costs.
Issues: Challenge to High court order based on compromise, authority of the advocate to enter into the compromise on behalf of the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The compromise entered into by the advocate without authority from the appellants rendered the impugned order of the High court unsustainable.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was remitted to the High court for redisposal. The appellants were entitled to costs of Rs 5000.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Compromise entered into without authorization — Respondents' conduct disentitling them from invoking discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. (Para 3 )
3. Enquiry by District Judge confirmed the advocate lacked authority to enter the compromise, as appellants neither signed the agreement nor executed a vakalatnama. (Para 3 )
4. An order disposing of a proceeding based on a compromise entered into by an advocate without the client's authorization or vakalatnama is unsustainable. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed with costs; High Court order set aside and writ petition remitted to the High Court for redisposal. (Para 3 )
6. Can a court sustain an order based on a compromise entered into by an advocate without the client's authorization?
No. If an enquiry reveals that the advocate lacked authority to enter the compromise and the clients did not sign the agreement or execute a vakalatnama, the order based on such a compromise cannot be sustained. (Para 3 )
7. What is the remedy for a party whose advocate entered into an unauthorized compromise?
The party may challenge the resulting court order and may also approach the Bar Council for appropriate action against the advocate. (Para 3 )
8. Does the conduct of a petitioner affect the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226?
Yes, the conduct of a party can potentially disentitle them from invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court under Article 226, a matter for the High Court to determine upon redisposal. (Para 3 )
( 1 ) DELAY condoned.
( 2 ) LEAVE granted.
( 3 ) THE order of the High court disposing of the writ petition on the basis of a compromise is the 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 of 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 did authorise Shri Kailash Nath Srivastava to enter into the compromise and whether the appellants were put on notice of the compromise by the Advocate Shri Srivastava. Pursuant 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 Srivastava 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 disentitles 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 redisposal on merits. Though there is sufficient force in the aforesaid contention, we think it appropriate for the High court to deal with this question and pass appropriate orders thereon. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and Writ Petition No. 514 of 1984 is remitted to the High court for redisposal 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 Srivastava 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 5000.
