An attorney must act within the authority given by the client; otherwise, statements made without proper authorization do not bind the client.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH KUMAR, J

1.Heard.

2. Present contempt application has been preferred against alleged non- compliance of the judgment and order dated 02.09.2009 passed in Special Appeal No. 579 of 2009. The relevant paras of the said judgment and order are being reproduced hereinbelow:-

" We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for being decided afresh, after afforing opportunity to the appellant, namely, opposite party no. 2 in the writ petition, in respect of the injunction being granted to the respondents.

So far the direction for deciding the recall application is concerned, we do not find any ground to interfere with the same, as both the parties agree that the application may be directed to be considered and disposed of expeditiously.

We expect that the application shall be decided within the time provided by the learned Single Judge.

At this juncture the counsel for the appellant says that the appellant does not intend to sell any property nor is going to sell the same."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that despite the undertaking given by respondent no. 1 before the appellate court, he has executed the sale deeds on 23.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 during the pendency of the writ petition.

4. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 1 after giving an undertaking before the Appellate Court was not supposed to execute the sale deed dated 23.12.2009 and 24.12.2009 in the light of the interim order dated 27.07.2009 passed in the Writ Petition. The relevant para of the said interim order is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"Till disposal of the aforesaid application, the parties shall not change the nature of property in dispute"

5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 has submitted that neither any undertaking has been given nor the respondent no. 1 had instructed his counsel to make any statement on his behalf before the Appellate Court hence, it could not be said that the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 in the appeal, where the respondent no. 1 was appellant, was not an undertaking and in support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh and others reported in (2015) 7 SCC 373 .

6. It is further submitted that the writ petition was also dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner, who is the applicant herein on 11.01.2010.

7. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 while submitting his reply to the charge has specifically mentioned in the affidavit that the statement given by his counsel is not in his knowledge, otherwise, he would not have sold the property and if the affidavit is read in totality then it has come out that he has not given any instruction to his counsel for making any such statement before the Appellate Court.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that before the Appellate Court, the counsel for the appellant i.e. respondent no. 1 herein "says that". There is nothing on record that the counsel was instructed by the respondent no. 1 to give any undertaking before the Appellate Court. It is the counsel who seems to have stated before the Appellate Court on his own. The relevant paras of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is being reproduced hereinbelow:-

"21. If for any reason, the writ court perceived the oral request made by the respondents to have justified the ends of justice and desired to accept the concession so made by the counsel for the appellant Society, the said request not being the subject-matter of the writ petition required the Court to query whether the counsel for the appellant Society has been authorised to make such a statement by the appellant Society or whether any such resolution has been passed by the appe