Y V NARAYANA Vs. PUVVADA VENKATAMADHAVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This CiviS Revision Petition is filed against the judgment dated 30th September, 1980, made in C. M. A. No. 35 of 1978 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Eluru.

(2.) The petitioners are 3rd and 4th respondents in CMA. They are decree holders, auction purchasers. The 2nd nsspodent is is the puisne, mortgagee, The judgment debtor filed a petition under Order 21, rule 90, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the sale. It was dismissed. The appeal was filed against the said order. The Counsel for the petitioners filed a Memo agreeing to allow the appeal. Accordingly the appeal was allowed. Against this order, the above Civil Revision Petition is filed. It is their case that they did not authorise their advocate one, Sri A, Suryanarayana Rao appeared for them to enter into the compromise. Without their authorisation, he filed a memo which reads that "the respondents 2 and 3 have no objection for allowing this appeal without costs for setting aside the sale held on 4th November, 1977 in E. P. No. 175 of 1977 in O. S. No. 791 of 1975 on the file of the First Additional District Muasif's Court, Eluru. Respondents 2 and 3 (Obviously it is a mistake for respondents '3' and '4' shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount by the 1st respondent (decree holder-auction purchaser) and also to apply for refund of value of the general stamp for sale certificate. Respondents 3 and 4 prayed that appropriate orders may kindly be passed." Relying upon this Memo, the Court has passed the following judgment: "Respondents filed a Memo. Accordingly the appeal is allowed without costs". Against this order the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

(3.) In this revision, Sri Reddappa Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner did not authorise the counsel to file the Memo. It is in violation of Order 23, rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. Admittedly, the petitioners did not sign the Memo and therefore, the Court has committed material irregularity in not satisfying itself, which duty casts on it by the statute, thereby the lower Court has acted in excess of the jurisdiction in accepting the Memo and allowing the appeal.