Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUBRAMANI
Mangayarkarasi - Appellant
Versus
Suseela and Others - Respondents
C.R.P. No. 90 of 2000 and C.M.P. No. 421 of 2000
Decided On : 31 January 2000
Counsel's Authority - Civil Procedure - Order 6, Rules 14 and 15 - 1968 Ker LT 1 : 1968 AIR(Ker) 213 - The judgment discussed the authority of counsel to act on behalf of the client, the implied authority of counsel to compromise on behalf of the client, and the role of an advocate in India. It highlighted the unique relationship of counsel with the public, the Court, and the client, and emphasized the inherent implied authority of counsel to enter into a compromise on behalf of the client, which would be binding on the client. The judgment also discussed the distinction between the construction of a document appointing an agent and a vakalat appointing counsel, and the implied powers necessarily inherent in the appointment of counsel.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants, alleging trespass and interference with possession of the suit property. The plaintiff sought direction against the defendants to file their counter-statement to the application filed by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the memo filed by the advocate on behalf of the defendants was sufficient, emphasizing the authority of counsel to act on behalf of the parties. The Court cited the authority of counsel to compromise on behalf of the client and the implied authority of counsel to do so, which would be binding on the client.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the memo filed by the advocate on behalf of the defendants and the authority of counsel to act on behalf of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established the inherent implied authority of counsel to compromise on behalf of the client, which would be binding on the client, and emphasized the unique relationship of counsel with the public, the Court, and the client.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as it lacked merit, and the Court held that the memo filed by the advocate on behalf of the defendants was sufficient. The Court also dismissed C.M.P. 421 of 2000.
The Order of the Court was as follows :
Plaintiff in O.S. 230 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Hosur is the revision petitioner herein.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order in I.A. 220 of 1999 an application filed by him whereby he wanted direction against Respondents 1 and 2 to file their counter- statement to I.A. 785 of 1998 in the suit by complying Order 6, Rules 14 and 15 of Code of Civil Procedure.
3. The material facts which necessitated filing of such application could be summarised thus: The suit filed by plaintiff was one for grant of decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their men from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of suit property until the plaintiff is evicted by due process of law. According to plaintiff, she entered into a contract of sale on 26-10-1985. In part performance of that contract, she was put in possession of scheduled property. According to her, time is not essence of the contract. While she was in possession, Respondents 1 and 2 committed trespass in the suit property and they attempted to dispossess petitioner and under those circumstances, she filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction.
4. Petitioner also moved for issue of Commission to inspect suit property and to note down the physical features in and around the suit property.
5. Third respondent filed a detailed counter-statement opposing the said petition.
6. Respondents 1 and 2 prayed for time for filing counter time and again and on 22-12-1998, counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 filed a memo stating that the counter filed by third respondent may be treated as counter-affidavit of Respondents 1 and 2 also. It is said that Respondents 1 and 2 have not signed the memo but only the counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 alone signed the same. Lower Court accepted the memo and treated as counter for Respondents 1 and 2 also.
7. According to petitioner, memo filed by counsel for Respondents 1 and 2 is not binding on Respondents 1 and 2 when the same is not signed by the parties. It is said that there is no procedure to admit this case merely on the basis of memo filed by counsel. Established practice of law is that pleadings are to be signed by parties and the same should be verified by parties under Order 6, Rules 14 and 15. Filing of memo in Court with the signature of counsel is not the procedure established by law and it is serious error in procedure. Merely because it is signed by counsel, it will not be binding on Respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 also must be directed to file their counter statement to the application filed by plaintiff. The application was, therefore, filed for the relief stated above.
8. For the said application serious objection was raised by respondents and by the impugned order lower Court held that the memo filed by advocate is sufficient. The same is challenged in this revision petition.
9. After hearing counsel for petitioner, I do not think that there is any merit in this revision petition.
10. Advocate is considered to be the agent of the parties and his acts and statement made within the limits of authority given to him are the acts and statement of party who has engaged him. Respondents 1 and 2 do not disown the memo and by filing counter to the interim application it is clear that advocate acted only within his authority. Even without such counter, what is the authority of counsel came for consideration before Honourable Supreme Court in the decision, reported in (Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India). After Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976, a consent decree was passed which was signed only by counsel and not by the parties. The validity of that settlement came for consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court and the question urged by counsel was that unless it is signed by the party, decree will not be binding on him. This argument was repelled by the Honourable Supreme Court. In paragraph 9, onwards of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
