1957 (1) TMI 50 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Upholds Validity of Consent Order

Harischandra Jha and Ors. Versus Dinesh Narain Jha and Ors.

Harischandra Jha and Ors. Versus Dinesh Narain Jha and Ors. - AIR 1958 Pat 521 Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. Validity and scope of the authority of Mr. S. C. Misra under the vakalatnama dated 27-3-1947.3. Whether Mr. G. P. Misra had the authority to represent the petitioners in the matter of the compromise.4. Whether Subodh Narayan Jha acted in a representative capacity on behalf of all his brothers in executing the vakalatnama dated 19-12-1952.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Review Application:The court considered whether the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was maintainable. The relevant provision allows for review on three grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The petitioners argued that the consent order dated 16-3-1953 was passed under a mistaken impression that all parties and their lawyers were present and had consented to the terms of the compromise. The court found that if the petitioners were not present and had not consented, there was a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, making the review application maintainable. This conclusion was supported by precedents such as Hakim Gir v. Basdeo Sahi, Ghansham Singh v. Lal Singh, and Sheonandan Prasad Singh v. Hakim Abdul Fateh Mohammad Reza.2. Validity and Scope of Authority of Mr. S. C. Misra:The court examined whether the vakalatnama dated 27-3-1947, given to Mr. S. C. Misra, remained valid after he was raised to the Bench on 11-12-1952. According to Sub-rule 4(2) of Order 3, Civil Procedure Code, a vakalatnama remains in force until determined by a writing signed by the client or the pleader, or until the client or the pleader dies, or until all proceedings in the suit are ended. Since none of these conditions were met, the vakalatnama remained valid. Consequently, the appearance slip filed by Mr. G. P. Misra under the authority of Mr. S. C. Misra was effective, and Mr. G. P. Misra could represent the petitioners in the matter of pleading.3. Authority of Mr. G. P. Misra to Represent the Petitioners:The court considered whether Mr. G. P. Misra had the authority to conclude an agreement of compromise on behalf of the petitioners. The court referred to precedents such as Sourendra Nath Mitra v. Tarubala Dasi and Sheonandan Prasad Singh v. Hakim Abdul Fateh Mohammad Reza, which recognized the implied authority of an advocate to effect a compromise on behalf of the client. The court concluded that Mr. G. P. Misra had the implied authority to effect a valid agreement of compromise on behalf of the petitioners.4. Representative Capacity of Subodh Narayan Jha:The court examined whether Subodh Narayan Jha acted in a representative capacity on behalf of all his brothers, including the petitioners, when executing the vakalatnama dated 19-12-1952. The evidence suggested that the brothers were joint during the course of the litigation, and Subodh Narayan Jha acted in a representative capacity. The court found no substantial evidence to suggest any animus between Subodh Narayan Jha and his brothers. The testimony of Mr. Raghunath Jha and Mr. G. P. Misra supported this view. However, the court noted that it was not necessary to give a definite finding on this point because the implied authority of Mr. G. P. Misra to conclude the compromise was sufficient to dismiss the review application.Conclusion:The review application was dismissed, with the court finding that the consent order dated 16-3-1953 was valid and binding on the petitioners. The court concluded that Mr. G. P. Misra had the implied authority to effect the compromise, and there was no evidence of fraud or collusion. The court did not award any costs.