Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Babulal Agrawal, was the original plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 29 of 2011 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Khamgaon. The suit sought a declaration that defendants 1 to 3 were intending to defeat his rightful claim based on an agreement of sale dated 27th February 2007 for purchasing suit property, and a direction to defendant No.3 (Chikli Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.) to release the suit property mortgaged with it. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was allegedly recorded between the plaintiff's advocate and defendants 1 and 2, and a decree was passed in terms of the compromise. The plaintiff filed an application (Exh.89) before the trial court praying that the compromise was not binding on him as his advocate had no authority to enter into the compromise without his express consent. The trial court rejected this application on 6th August 2015, holding that the compromise was valid. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed the present writ petition. The legal issue was whether an advocate has implied authority to compromise a suit without the client's express consent. The petitioner argued that the compromise was without his knowledge and consent, and his advocate had no authority. The respondents contended that the advocate had implied authority. The High Court, relying on the principle that an advocate has no implied authority to compromise a suit without the client's express consent, held that the compromise was not binding on the petitioner. The court set aside the trial court's order and allowed the application, declaring the compromise not binding. The court also directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Compromise Decree - Advocate's Authority - Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined whether a compromise recorded by the plaintiff's advocate without the plaintiff's express consent is binding. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance and sought to challenge a compromise allegedly entered into by his advocate. The court held that an advocate has no implied authority to compromise a suit without the client's express consent, and such a compromise is not binding on the client. The trial court's rejection of the plaintiff's application was set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court considered whether the trial court could invoke its inherent powers to set aside a compromise decree obtained without the plaintiff's consent. The court held that the trial court has inherent power to declare a compromise not binding if it was entered into without the plaintiff's authority, and the rejection of the application was erroneous. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a compromise recorded between the plaintiff's advocate and the defendants without the plaintiff's express consent is binding on the plaintiff, and whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaintiff's application to declare the compromise not binding.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the trial court's order dated 6th August 2015, and allowed the application Exh.89, declaring that the compromise recorded between the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 and 2 is not binding on the petitioner. The trial court was directed to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Compromise decree
- advocate's authority
- Order 23 Rule 3 CPC
- inherent powers of court
- fraud on court
- non-consensual compromise
