9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Review Petition after dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP). 2. Validity of the counsel's statement about settlement without written consent. 3. Bar on availing remedies after withdrawal of SLP without leave. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of Review Petition after dismissal of Special Leave Petition (SLP): The primary issue was whether the Review Petition (C) No. D-5/2008 filed before the High Court was maintainable after the dismissal of SLP (C) No. 10939 of 2008. The court considered the principles laid down in *Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another*, which clarified that the dismissal of an SLP does not bar the filing of a review petition. The court noted that the SLP was dismissed as withdrawn without any leave for further action. The decision in *Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior, and Others* was also referenced, which extended the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of CPC to writ petitions, emphasizing that withdrawal without permission to file afresh should be seen as abandonment of the remedy under Article 226/227. The court concluded that the review petition was maintainable. 2. Validity of the counsel's statement about settlement without written consent: The court examined whether the statement made by the counsel about the settlement and modification of the decree without a written document or consent from the appellants was acceptable. The court referred to Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, which requires that a compromise must be in writing and signed by the parties. The court cited *Gurpreet Singh vs. Chatur Bhuj Goel*, which emphasized that compromises should be reduced to writing. The court also referenced *Byram Pestonji Gariwala vs. Union Bank of India and Others*, which recognized the traditional role of lawyers and their implied authority to act on behalf of their clients. The court observed that the counsel's authority to act on behalf of the appellants was not disputed until the review petition was filed. The court held that the counsel's statement was within his competence and valid under the circumstances. 3. Bar on availing remedies after withdrawal of SLP without leave: The court addressed whether the dismissal of the SLP as withdrawn without leave of the Court to challenge the impugned order barred the appellants from availing further remedies. The court cited *Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another*, which stated that the dismissal of an SLP does not preclude the filing of a review petition. The court noted that the appellants had not raised any objection to their counsel's conduct until filing the review petition, and there was no material to substantiate that the counsel acted without instructions. The court concluded that the review petition was not barred and was maintainable. Conclusion: The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them. The review petition was maintainable, the counsel's statement about the settlement was valid, and the dismissal of the SLP did not bar the appellants from filing a review petition. The court emphasized the importance of written instructions for compromises to safeguard the reputation of counsel and uphold the dignity of the legal profession.
|
