Find a Lawyer

Regular Second Appeal No. 725 of 1977, decided on 6th March, 1979.

-- O. III, r. 1 -Counsel and client- Vakalatnama--Counsel accepting offer of sale price made by opposing counsel--Contention that counsel accepting offer not authorised for such acceptance, hence, acceptance unauthorised, held, incorrect Vakalatnama clearly authorises counsel to make any statement or enter into compromise on client's behalf-

[Counsel and client--Vakalatnama)

M. R. Chughtal for Appellants.

The facts giving rise to this regular second appeal are that the respondent, Muhammad Pervez and three others, filed a suit against the appellants, Jang Bahadur and three others, for possession o f a piece of land by pre-emotion. The suit land was sold for an ostensible sale price of Rs. 9,400. The respondents, however, contended that the sale had taken place, in fact. for Rs. 1,425. The trial Court found that the sale price of Rs. 9,400 was neither fixed in good faith nor actually paid. The market value of the suit land at the time of its sale, in the opinion of the said Court, was Rs. 3,048. The suit was, therefore, decreed on the payment of Rs. 3,048.

2. Feeling aggrieved, by the judgment and dcree of the trial Court the defendants went in appeal before the District Judge. During the course of arguments before him, learned counsel for the plaintiffs offered to pay Rs. 4,000 as sale price and this offer was accepted by the learned counsel on other side. The learned District Judge, therefore, fixed the market value at Rs. 4,000 and modified the decree accordingly. As the defendants were not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned District judge., they have come up in second appeal to this Court

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned counsel who represented them before the first appellate Court had no authority t accept the offer of Rs. 4,000 made by the learned counsel for the respondents. This is, however, not correct. I have gone through the Vakalatnam executed by the appellants in favour of their counsel. It is on the file of the learned District Judge. In this Vakalatnama, they clearly authorised their counsel to make any statement or enter into compromise on the' behalf. Learned counsel for the appellants has, not been able to cite an law or other authority on the point that in spite- of the aforesaid authorisation by the appellants;-which is embodied in the Vakalwnuma, their counsel could not accept the offer made by the opposite counsel without securing separate authority from then in this regard my view, the authority given to him by means of the Vakalatnama was enough for the purpose. They cannot, therefore, now wriggle out of the commitment made by their counsel on their behalf.

4. No other point was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.

5. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

M. A. K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.