https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272516 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. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 May 2018 11:54:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272516 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Jan 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272516