Lawyer's inherent authority to compromise the case and the power to compromise a suit is inherently vested with the Advocates in India.

ORDER :

1. The instant review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 (1) CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1949 for recalling the judgment dated 31.08.2021, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14783/2013.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the respondent had filed an application for eviction of the property on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona-fide necessity.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Eviction Tribunal decided both the issues of default in payment of rent and bona-fide necessity against the respondent.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings on both the issues.

5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order of Appellate Tribunal, filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14783/2013 before this Court.

6. Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the writ petition the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent was referred to the Mediation Centre, however, the mediation efforts had failed and thereafter the matter was listed before this Court.

7. Learned counsel submitted that this Court on 31.08.2021 recorded the consent of counsels appearing for both the parties and disposed of the writ petition by granting six months time to vacate the premise.

8. Learned counsel submitted that both the counsels also mutually agreed that the rent @ 800/-per month is required to be paid till vacation of premise by February, 2022.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the order passed by this Court and further she did not give any instructions to her Advocate to enter into any compromise on her behalf in the matter.

10. Learned counsel submitted that the counsel concerned of the petitioner, did not inform about the decision dated 31.08.2021 and accordingly, the petitioner also did not give any undertaking before the Rent Tribunal as was directed by this Court and only in the Month of February, 2022, the petitioner came to know that she has to vacate the premise as the respondent had got an order from the High Court.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 31.08.2021 has been passed without appreciating the facts as well as the legal position.

12. Learned counsel submitted that learned Advocate, who was representing the petitioner exceeded his jurisdiction to enter into compromise, whereas the petitioner had never instructed her counsel to make such compromise/settlement.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Power (Vakalatnama) is a stereo-type document which is signed by the party and until there are clear instructions of the client, no Advocate can enter into compromise without having obtained consent from the litigant.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the outcome of the entire judgment has resulted into grave injustice ¼vU;k;½ to the petitioner and on account of entering into compromise, she should not be made to suffer.

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Gill submitted that if there are concurrent findings against the tenant in the eviction matters, usually the Courts are passing the order for providing time to the tenant to vacate the premise and where there is a reversal of finding, the compromise, if any, takes place between the parties, then the Court has to apply its judicious mind to decide the controversy.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Madras High Court in the judgment passed in the case of Thenal Ammal and Anr. Vs.Sokkammal and Ors. reported in 41 Ind Cas 429, considered the issue to enter into compromise by the counsel on behalf of his client and laid down that Vakalatnama does not give any authority to Lawyer/Vakil to enter into compromise without reference to his clients.

1