Concessions made by counsel without client authority can jeopardize client rights, and such concessions may be grounds for reviewing court orders.

ORDER :

S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

This Review Petition has been filed seeking for review of the order dated 14.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.3012/2023. The Review Petitioner has sought for revival and restoration of the writ proceedings and for re-hearing of the petition on merits.

2. This court in W.P.No.3012/2023, in a writ petition filed seeking for calling for records in O.S.No.4217/2020 and for directing the Trial Court to consider the applications of the petitioner in I.A.No.1/2020 and I.A.No.2/2020 filed seeking interim injunction, disposed of the writ petition in terms of the following:

"After hearing the matter for sometime, submission is made on behalf of the petitioners that if the developers were to undertake not to encumber the owners' share for development of the property, the grievance would be redressed for the present.

2. Learned Counsel Sri Abhinav Ramanand appearing for respondent No.1 submits that the owners' share would be kept intact for the present.

3. In light of the same and in light of the stand of the petitioners, question of passing any order as regards disposal of I.A.No.1/2020 and 2/2020 does not arise.

Liberty is however reserved to the petitioners, in the event, some other reliefs are required to move the trial Court by appropriate proceedings. Needless to state that in light of the stand of the petitioners, respondent No.1 is at liberty to develop the property, subject to the undertaking made above. Notice to respondents No.2, 3 and 4 is dispensed with as no relief is sought for against them. It is clarified that the undertaking of the respondents and the stand of the petitioners would hold good as regards the petitioners and respondent No.1 as the other respondents are not parties in the present proceedings. The submission of both sides that even as regards sharing agreement is concerned, parties are trying to settle amicably is taken on record.

Suit to be disposed off taking note of the applicable Guidelines issued by this Court relating to disposal of the old cases. Accordingly, petition is disposed off."

3. This Court taking note of the submission made on behalf of the petitioners had observed that the grievance of the petitioners would be redressed if the developers were to undertake not to encumber the owners share for development of the property and taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for respondent that the owners share will be kept intact, disposed of the writ petition.

4. In effect, the court taking note of the stand of the petitioners granted liberty to respondent no.1 to develop the property subject to the undertaking as found in the order above.

5. The writ petition itself was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit who are the review petitioners seeking for consideration of I.A.-1/2020 and I.A.-2/2020 filed seeking interim injunction on priority. The petitioners had also sought for an order restraining respondent no.1, agents or persons claiming through or under them from interfering with the petitioner's possession over the schedule property and an order of restraint against respondent no.1 from creating third party interest or changing the nature of the schedule property or demolishing the building constructed.

6. The brief facts leading to the dispute on hand was that the Pattankar family consisted of first defendant- Udhav D. Patankar, the father, plaintiff-Mrs.Yamuna