The main legal point established in the judgment is the implied authority of counsel to compromise a suit, the need for specific instructions from the client, and the limitations of the implied authority.

Eradi, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition arises from an order of the court below dismissing an application filed by the defendant in O. S. No. 468 of 1962 on the file of the Sub Court, Palghat, for setting aside the decree passed in the case on the basis of a statement by his counsel that the suit may be decreed in terms of the plaint.

2. The respondent, who was appointed as Receiver in a partition suit, bad filed that suit against the revision petitioner for realisation of arrears of rent due from 1133 under an oral lease. The defendant denied the terms of the oral lease as set out in the plaint and contended that the annual money portion of the rent was only Rs, 41/-and not Rs. 171/- as claimed in the plaint, and that arrears of rent due upto 1137 have been discharged.

3. On 11-12-1964 counsel for the defendant endorsed on the back of the plaint that the suit may be decreed as prayed for.

4. On the basis of the endorsement the court passed the decree.

5. The defendant thereafter filed an application on 11-1-1965 for setting aside the decree for the reason that counsel had no authority to make the endorsement, that the suit must therefore be deemed to be pending, and that the court must proceed with the trial of the suit and pass a decree after evaluating his contentions on their merits. This application was dismissed by the court. The court said that counsel must be deemed to have authority to make the endorsement, that the court is concerned only with representations made by counsel in court, that work in court would become impossible if in every case when a representation is made by counsel the court should be obliged to probe into the question whether the representation is made with authority, and dismissed the petition.

6. The Revision Petition was referred to a Full Bench as an important question of law regarding the authority of counsel engaged in a case is involved.

7. In Saureudra Nath v. Tarupala Dasi AIR. 1930 PC. 158,161 the Privy Council said that an Advocate in India has inherent authority to enter into a compromise on behalf of his client and that the compromise so entered into would be binding on him. Lord Atkin in delivering the judgment of the Board said:

"Their Lordships regard the power to compromise a suit as inherent in the position of an advocate in India. The considerations which have led to this implied power being established in the advocates of England, Scotland and Ireland, apply in equal measure to India. It is a power deemed to exist because its existence is necessary to effectuate the relations between advocate and client, to make possible the duties imposed upon the advocate by his acceptance of the cause of his client".

He then stated the reason why such an authority should be implied. This is what he said:

"He must in the interests of his client be in the position, hour by hour, almost minute by minute, to advance this argument, to withdraw that; he must make the final decision whether evidence is to be given or not on any question of fact; skill in advocacy is largely the result of discrimination. These powers in themselves almost amount to powers of compromise; one point is given up that another may prevail. But in addition to these duties, there is from time to time thrown upon the advocate, the responsible task of deciding whether in the course of a case he shall accept an offer made to him, or on his part shall make an offer on his client's behalf to receive or pay some thing less than the full claim or the full possible liability. Often the decision must be made at once."

The implied authority is an actual authority and not an appendage to his office or dignity added by the court to the status of the advocate. The implied authority can always be countermanded by the client and if in a particular case it is found that the implied authority has been expressly limited, then counsel has only that authority as limited by the client. No advocate has got actual authority to settle a case ag