BANSILAL Vs. JASRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision application against a decree of Munsif, Sirohi, dismissing his suit on the special oath of the defendant which was taken by him on the offer of the pleader of the plaintiff. THIS offer was made without taking instructions from the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 513/4/- Oral and documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the plaintiff in support of his case. The defence was a denial of all the allegations made in the plaint. The defendant did not, however, examine any witness to rebut the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff. A date was fixed for arguments in the suit. On that date the pleader of the plaintiff made an offer to be bound by the oath of Shri Parasnathji to be taken by the defendant. The defendant accepted the offer and took the oath. On this oath the suit was dismissed. Against this decree the plaintiff preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Civil judge, who held that the pleader of the plaintiff had implied authority to make an offer on behalf of his! client to be bound by the special oath of the defendant. The terms of Vakalatnama executed by the plaintiff in favour of his pleader do not authorise the latter to make an offer of special oath or to compromise the suit, or to refer it to arbitration. The relevant portion of the vakalatnama runs as follows: -

(2.) ESA ca'khyky-----------------------eqdnek equntkz vuoky okyk ESA viuh rjq ls Jheku~ /kujktth rkrsm+ dks odhy eqdjzj djrk gwwa og esjh rjq ls bl eqdnESA ESA gkftj gksdj isjoh djsaxsa odhy lkgc dks viuh ekstwnxh ESA nwljk odhy eqdjzj djus dk v[kr;kj gksxka mudh o muds eqdjzj fd, gq, odhy dh isjoh eq> dks eutwj o dcwy gksxha**

(3.) THERE are two important decisions of their lordships of the Privy Council bearing on the point. In Smt. Saratkumari Dasi Vs. Amullyadhan Kundu and others (7), the appellant executed a power-of-attomey appointing several persons as her vakils to argue her case, to inspect the records, execute documents and deposit and withdraw monies and do all such other acts. Their lordships observed that it has been well established that a vakil appointed under such power-of attorney was not endowed with power or authority to compromise the suit he was thus retained to argue. This decision is directly applicable in considering whether or not a pleader who is not specifically empowered to compromise the suit on behalf of his client by a vakalatnama can do so under his implied authority. It cannot be seriously disputed that a pleader who cannot enter into a compromise on behalf of his client without his specific authority cannot make an offer on his behalf under sec. 9 of the Oaths Act so as to bind him.