Warnasuriya V. Lucy Nona Et Al.,

1948 Present : Canekeratne, Windham, and Gratiaen JJ.
 
WARNASURIYA, Appellant, and LUCY NONA et al.,
Respondents.
 
S. C. 385-D. C. Matara, 16,577.

Counsel-Application for postponement-Refusal-Withdrawal from action-How far binding on client.
 
Counsel has, by reason of his retainer, complete authority over the suit and the mode of conducting it, and an abandonment of the action by him would be binding on his client.
 
APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Matara.
 
E. B. Wikramanayake, for the plaintiff, appellant.-Postponement should have been granted in view of the circumstances in which it was asked for.
 
The plaintiff was not bound by the act of his Counsel in withdrawing from the case. Counsel cannot enter into any compromise without the consent of his client-Garrison v. Rodrigues 1-and of the trial Judge- Woutersz v. Carpen Chetty 2. The trial Judge was wrong in dismissing the action. He should have given the plaintiff an opportunity of going on with the case. He should have, at least, considered the evidence which had been already led. Proof of the registration of the lis pendent was not necessary as agains

Click Here to Read the rest of this document