- (1.) THE present appeal has been filed under section 100 of CPC by the appellants-plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 5.8.2010 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jhunjhunu (hereinafter referred as the "appellate court") in Civil Regular Appeal No.4/2009, whereby the appellate court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (JD), Udaipurwati (hereinafter referred as the "trial court") in Civil Suit No.7 of 2000.
(2.) THE present appellants-plaintiffs had filed the suit before the trial court seeking declaration that the order dated 16.2.1985 submitted therein passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority and the so called compromise dated 15.2.1985 be declared as illegal and ineffective, so far as the rights of the plaintiffs are concerned. It was contended in the suit that the respondents-defendants had filed the suit in the court of Assistant Collector, Nawalgarh in respect of land bearing khasra no.2261 (new no. 2554/3202), which was owned by the plaintiff. The defendants had also filed an application being No. 22 of 1984 seeking temporary injunction. In the said case, the Asstt. Collector passed the order to attach the land in question and appointed receiver. Being aggrieved by the said order, the predecessor in title of the appellants-plaintiffs had filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority. According to the appellants-plaintiffs, in the said proceedings before the Revenue Appellate Authority, the Advocate Mr. Hemant Sogani appearing for the predecessors of the appellants-plaintiffs had filed a compromise without any authority and on the basis of said compromise, the Revenue Appellate Authority disposed of the said appeal vide the order dated 16.2.1985. According to the appellants-plaintiffs, the concerned Advocate was not authorized to make compromise in the matter, therefore the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authoriy was not binding on them. The trial court vide the judgment dated 22.11.2008 dismissed the said suit of the plaintiffs, against which, the appeal was preferred before the appellate court. The appellate court also dismissed the appeal, hence the present second appeal has been filed by the appellants. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Lokesh Sharma for the appellants that the concerned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs before the Revenue Appellate Authority was not authorized to make any compromise on behalf of appellants and therefore the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority was not binding to them. He also submitted that both the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that the concerned advocate could not have filed the compromise without any signature or thumb impression of the concerned appellants in the said proceedings.
(3.) THE court does not find any substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants inasmuch as the authority of concerned pleader or advocate appointed by the appellants in the said appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, was not challenged by the present appellants by giving him any notice or writing any letter disputing such compromise. It is also pertinent to note that as per the settled legal position, the counsel who is duly authorized by the party to appear by executing vakalatnama, is empowered to continue with the proceedings and also to withdraw the proceedings or compromise the proceedings on instructions from the party. The counsel would have all the power as conferred under O. III Rule 4 of CPC. In the recent decision in the case of Bakshi Dev Raj and Anr. Vs Sudheer Kumar, AIR 2011 SC 3137, the Apex court has made very pertinent observations in this regard, which read as under: "The analysis of the above decisions make it clear that the counsel who was duly authorized by a party to appear by executing Vakalatnama and in terms of Order III Rule 4, empowers the counsel to continue on record until the proceedings in the suit are duly terminated. The counsel, therefore, has power to make a statement on instructions from the party to withdraw the appeal. In such circumstance, the counsel making a statement on instructions either for withdrawal of appeal or for modification of the decree is well within his competence and if really the counsel has not acted in the interest of the party or against the instructions of the party, the necessary remedy is elsewhere." It is has been further observed that "In the absence of such recourse or material in the light of the provisions of the CPC as discussed and interpreted by this Court, it cannot be construed that the counsel is debarred from making any statement on behalf of the parties. No doubt, as pointed out in Byram Pestonji (AIR 1991 SC 2234: 1991 AIR SCW 2567) (supra), in order to safeguard the present reputation of the counsel and to uphold the prestige and dignity of legal profession, it is always desirable to get instructions in writing." ;