LOKESH SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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: