RAGHO SEWAK RAI Vs. BHOLA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur in the following terms: The counsel on the other side has no objection excepting as to costs. The petition is therefore allowed provided that the applicant do pay to the other side all the costs of the litigation within two months hence; failing which the application, shall stand dismissed with costs.

(2.) The application to which the order refers was one for permission under Order 23, Rule 1 to withdraw a suit with permission to bring a fresh suit about the same subject-matter. The suit was one for a declaration that a transfer by a Hindu widow in possession of property was not binding upon the reversioners. The question at issue was whether the transferee was the son of the sister of the last male owner of the property. The plaintiff failed in the trial Court and made the application in appeal which led to the order against which this revision has been filed. The only ground he gave in his application was that it was inopportune to have filed the suit while the widow was still alive. However that may be, the fact remains that the present applicant did not object to the order passed by the Court below in that Court. Counsel for the applicant stated that they had no objection to the order provided that they got their costs. It has been suggested that counsel went beyond their authority in agreeing to the order which was passed, but the terms of the vakalatnama have been read to me and it is clear that the authority given to counsel was very wide. It included an authority to enter into a compromise or settlement. In these circumstances I do not think it can fairly be said that counsel were not representing the applicant when they accepted the application of the plaintiff that the suit should be withdrawn with liberty to bring a fresh suit.

(3.) The main argument which has been addressed to me is that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was passed without jurisdiction and that counsel for the applicant in that Court could not by their consent confer jurisdiction upon the learned Judge. This argument is based upon the authority of the rulings of some other Courts, but it appears to me that it is unnecessary to go beyond the series of decisions in this Court upon this question of the effect of Order 23, Rule 1, Civil P.C.