Implied authority of counsel to compromise and review for apparent error upheld in a recorded settlement dispute.

A compromise order recorded on the mistaken assumption that all parties and counsel had consented can be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, because such an error is apparent on the face of the record. The Court also held that an advocate's memorandum of appearance remained effective for pleading, the vakalatnama continued until lawfully determined, and counsel had implied authority to settle the matter unless expressly restricted. On the facts, no withdrawal or limitation of authority was shown, so the advocate could bind the petitioners by compromise and the review failed. The compromise order was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a review lay on the ground that the compromise order was recorded under a mistaken impression that all concerned parties and counsel had consented; and (ii) whether the advocate appearing under the memorandum of appearance had authority to bind the petitioners by the compromise recorded in appeal.

Issue (i): whether a review lay on the ground that the compromise order was recorded under a mistaken impression that all concerned parties and counsel had consented.

Analysis: Review was held maintainable where an order recording compromise is alleged to have been made without authority of the party said to be bound by it. Such a situation constitutes a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, because the Court proceeded on an incorrect assumption that the parties and their counsel had consented.

Conclusion: Review lay on this ground.

Issue (ii): whether the advocate appearing under the memorandum of appearance had authority to bind the petitioners by the compromise recorded in appeal.

Analysis: A vakalatnama continued in force until determined in accordance with law, and the memorandum of appearance filed by the advocate remained effective for pleading. The Court also applied the settled principle that counsel has implied authority to compromise a suit on behalf of the client, unless expressly forbidden. On the facts, the steps taken by the advocate amounted to pleading and not acting, and no withdrawal or restriction of authority was shown.

Conclusion: The advocate had authority to conclude the compromise and bind the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The compromise order was upheld and the review application failed for want of substance.

Ratio Decidendi: A compromise recorded by the Court is valid where counsel appearing for a party has implied authority to settle the matter and the compromise is not shown to have been concluded against express instructions or after termination of the subsisting appointment.

---