SARUP CHAND Vs. JAGDISH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs, Sarup Chand and another against order dated September 10,1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dismissing their application for review of an earlier order passed by the Additional District Judge, dated June 3, 1987.

(2.) SARUP Chand and another filed a suit for possession by ejectment of Jagdish Chand tenant from the property in suit which was let out on February 1, 1980. The construction of the building was alleged to have been completed in the year 1973 and thus, the provisions of the Rent Act were not applicable to the case. The suit was filed on April 16, 1982 which was decreed by the trial Court on June 3, 1985. Jagdish Chand tenant filed an appeal which was pending before the Additional District Judge, and was allowed on June 3, 1987 on the alleged statement made by counsel for the landlords, respondents in the said appeal The review application was filed, because the learned counsel who appeared in the appeal, had no authority to make such a statement. The review application was dismissed on the ground that Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate, had been putting in appearance on behalf of Shri P. K. Gupta, Advocate who was representing the landlords in the trial Court, as well as in the appellate Court. A presumption was drawn that Shri Bansal, thus, had the authority to make a statement.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I found that there was no written or oral authority given to Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate to make a statement in Court. When the revision application was filed, replies were filed by some of the Advocate which may briefly be noticed. Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate in his reply stated that he was instructed by Shri P. K. Gupta, Advocate, on behalf of respondents (in that case), and statement was made at the instance of Shri Ravi Parkash Gupta, Advocate who assured him that Shri P. K. Gupta had asked him to' make such a statement to withdraw the suit on his behalf. Thus he made a statement on the assurance of Shri R. P. Gupta, Advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the appellant before the lower appellate Court. Shri P. K. Gupta, Advocate made a statement that he never engaged Shri R. K. Bansal Advocate to make any compromise statement in appeal According to him, he had submitted arguments for the decision of the appeal and the appeal was to be allowed in view of the recent decision of the High Court. Shri R. P. Gupta (Ravi Parkash) denied the allegations of Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate. From the material aforesaid, it was quite clear that there was no instructions with Shri R. K. Bansal, Advocate either from the landlords directly or through Shri R. K. Gupta, Advocate to withdraw the suit by making any statement in the appeal.