Consent orders are generally binding on the parties and cannot be recalled or modified unless there is a serious miscarriage of justice, lack of good faith on the part of the lawyer, or specific instruction from the clients to the contrary.

Samir Kumar Mookherjee, J.

1. A Revisional Application being C.O. No. 2021 of 1992, had been moved, challenging Order No. 17, dated 13th August, 1992, passed by the Learned First Assistant District Judge, Hooghly, in Title Suit No. 3 of 1992, wherein, the State Bank of India was the Plaintiff, praying for, inter alia, recovery of money lent and advanced, enforcement of pledge and/or hypothecation/mortgage/guarantees making the revisional petitioner and Opposite Parties 2 to 7 defendants. In course of an application for appointment of receiver in the said suit, a question arose as to who had the authority and right to represent the Defendant No. lithe Revisional Petitioner in the said suit. The Learned Trial Judge held in favour of opposite parties 5, 6 and 7, who were represented by Sri Sanat Kumar Biswas, a Learned Advocate.

2. The said Revisional Application was disposed of, in course of contested hearing on 17 November, 1992, on the basis of an agreed order, virtually, affirming the order, challenged in the Revisional Application with a rider to the effect that the Order, dated 17th November, 1992, would not prevent the parties from moving any other appropriate forum for getting the disputes between the petitioner and opposite parties 5, 6 and 7, adjudicated according to law in any other proceeding.

3. It is significant to note that xerox copies of the said Order dated 17tlt November, 1992 had been received by the Learned Advocates on records for the contesting parties on 4th, 14th and 15th December, 1992, respectively, and that corrections were made on 27.11.92 by hand in the said Order upon mentioning by the Learned Advocates representing the respective contestants. Such corrections also were incorporated in the xerox copies prior to their delivery.

4. On or about 18th January, 1993, the instant application was filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Parties 5, 6 and 7, for variation and/or modification and/or recalling of the said Order dated 17.11.1992.

5. In substance, the grounds on which the application for reconsideration of the order was sought to be maintained were:

(a) Failure of the applicants' representative to appreciate the implication of the ad vices of their learned advocates.

(b) Probable communication gap to the extent that it was understood that the effect of the Order would be confined to the hearing of the receiver application alone.

(c) The paint about the entitlement to. represent the company would be decided in the same proceeding, (d) The senior counsel representing the applicant could not be properly instructed.

(e) One of the applicants being a minor without the leave of the Court, his or her interest could not be affected and the invalidity of the consent order for non-compliance with provisions of Order 23, Rule 3, of the Civil Procedure Code.

6. The averments made in the application in question, if properly read and considered, unequivocally show that the fact that Order in question was a consent Order had been accepted but after the matter went back to the Trial Court, an the basis of a note sent by the Learned Advocate far the applicants in the Trial Court to. his learned counterpart in this Court after the former had studied the case thoroughly and deciphered the scope of the dispute between the contesting parties relating to the representation of the Company, that the applicants could appreciate the necessity of making the present application. The prayer far recalling, also, substantially seeks sustenance from the alleged non-enforceability of the said Order and/or absence of authority of the representative giving such consent due to failure of such representative to appreciate the effect, implication and impart of the advice given by the Learned Advocates concerned. It is judicially well established that no. party will ordinarily be allowed to. resile from the consent order even on such grounds except when there is a serious miscarriage of justice, there is a lack of goo