IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.406 of 2007 --------- 1. PANKAJ KUMAR son of Satyendra YadavResident of village Basawan Patti, P.S. Karjain Bazar,Dist. Supaul …….Defendant petitioner Versus 1.SURYA NARAYAN JAYSWAL son of late Mahadev Chaudhary resident of village Vishanpur (Daulatpur), P.S. RAghopur, Dist. Supaul (plaintiff O.P. no.1) 2.Om Prakash Jayswal son of Sukdeo Prasad Jayswal 3.Sukdeo Prasad Jayswal so0n of Chutaharu Choudhary 4.Chhutaharu Chaudhary son of late Mishri Lal Chaudhary ,all residents of Village Fakirna, P.S. Karjain Bazar, Dist. Supaul …….(Defendant O.P. no.2 ----------- For the petitioner :Mr. Binay Kumar, advocate. --------- 07 10.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Civil Revision has been filed by defendant no.4- petitioner challenging order dated 20.7.2006 by which the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Supaul, disposed of his petition dated 09.09.2005 for allowing him to recall the undertaking given by his counsel without his consent that defendant no.4 will maintain status quo in Title Suit no. 132 of 2003. 3. The aforesaid suit was filed by the sole plaintiff -O.P. No.1 for Specific Performance of Contract and for declaring the sale deed executed with respect to the land to be void and also for other ancillary reliefs including permanent injunction. In the said suit defendants appeared and contested the claim raised by the plaintiff. 4. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff filed an injunction petition dated 03.12.2003 for restraining the defendants from - 2 - changing the nature of the suit property and from taking possession thereof. It transpires that on 3.2.2005 learned counsel for defendant no.4 without consent of defendantno.4 gave an undertaking on his behalf before the court that he will maintain status quo till the disposal of the suit. 5. It transpires that on 09.09.2005 defendant no.4 filed a petition for permitting him to recall the aforesaid undertaking dated 03.02.2005. All the said petitions including injunction petition and recall petition were considered by the learned court below and vide its order dated 02.07.2006 the injunction petition was rejected. An observation in the said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision . 6. It is quite apparent that neither there is any petition on behalf of defendant no.4 nor there is any material to suggest that defendant no.4 has given any such undertaking in court or his consent to make such statement in court on his behalf. The learned Court below has also considered the well settled principle of law in the said matter holding that wrong concession made by the counsel without the consent of the petitioner is not binding on the client 7. The learned court below has also found that the plaintiff having failed to show any prima facie case with respect to the injunction his petition for restraining the defendant was rejected. Hence the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the defendant no.4 has no value or strength at all. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned court below has not passed any order against which the defendant no.4 could have any grievance rather the learned court below has supported the claim of defendantno.4 and has rejected the petition filed by the plaintiff. - 3 - 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the learned court below. Accordingly this Civil Revision is disposed of. (S.N. Hussain, J) M.Rahman