Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ,---~~-- \'Y ~ t'v"I" f ", .'-, - ~ ....---.... @ wriggle out iimD the said consent. It is urged by tho teamed coullsel thaL the c-oncess\on IS not given contrary to any slatute ~)Ul f1mdamcntally it is ill re::.pcctof facts and, the1~fore, the authorities rell.cd npon are not .applicable. It is also put forlh by 11:111 that if the appeals of this nature are entertained aiter giving c.ol1sent before the learned Single Judge in a gIven situation, it would usher in tIle·abuse of the proceSfj (Jfthe Court whi.ch is impermissible 'in law. 12. \Ve have already-narra~ed the facts in detail and lhe circumstances ill which the copcession Was recorded. The submission of l\1r Nigam is .that such a concession would not bind the appeHants. In SP~W l'luthialt Clletti and Olhe" (supra), the High Court of :Vladras Was dealing with the power ufthe cOllnsel to make admission Qn·thc client's bchnlf. The Bench, after reli!f[ing to the decisions rendered ill Dighiioy Roy v. ""III Rahman: (19] 8) 17 CW,N. 156, JVundu Lall Rose v. Nislrini DIls; : (1900) 27 CuL 428, SlrIlUS.\' v. Francis: (1866) I QB 379, Swill/en v. Swin/i!f1 (1857) 1 CB (NS) 364, llf"ll.ews v. lHunsler (1887) 20 ODD 14[, EliwortiTy v. Bir": Prun1ya 3&, B.llI: Sen Bros v. CiTuni Lal Duft & Co : A TR 1924 CuI. 651, BIIUI Nail. P. Ram Lal (1 ~02) 6 CWN 82, Swill/en v. Lor" Chellllsfimi (1859) I F& F 619, In the COllri 0/ Exchequer C/mmbcrs l'. 1I1(fSOIl (1859) 5 CB (NS) 59, Dw"r Iluz Sirkll' p, Falili Ja/i (1&98) 26 Cal. 250, and Ileery v, Mullen (1871) 5 IR 368, culled out the [allowing pri!lCipies: "(1) A counsel has authority tv make admissions in Court on behalf of his client on matters of Jact relevarit to the i.fA Nos" 298/2010 &, 299/2010 Page 10 oJ 30 I ~. .... , cv"l "\ j''" .. '! . I' hi' . d "." ® ls~'Ues Jll t 1C case lIt W He le 18 engage .' Aw11lSSlOtlS. on" questions of law would not bind tbe cljcnt~ (2) A counsel has authority to confess judgIllc,nt l . withdraw or compromise, or refer l6 arbitratioll the SLut in which he is instructed if his doing so is for hi:::. cliellt's advantage or benefit even though he has no cxprcs~., auUlOrlty from }~s client. (-3) A counsel cannot without express authority agree to compromise or refer to arbitrnthm maHers unconneclcd wilh lhe subject-mutter of the suit in which lie is' instrucLctl. (4) "Where; in dle course uf a suit, a counsel makes all' admissiml as to a coHateral matter or gives up a QOubL(U( claim which is 'not a subject-matter of the suil, there is a prcsur'nptiOfl thJt the cuunsel acts under ins1ruciions ifthe admissiOns or the gi ving up of the doubtful claim 1S f{)f' """.~ the bene'tit of the client. #. (5) It is a question of fad in each cat:e whether the counsel acts under instructions when he compromises. or refers to arbitration maUers not involved in the suit anti the Court 011 a c-onsideration of tile probabilities Ilnd the circumstances of the case· cun, find tP.UL the counsel ac1ed on instructions even though there is no direct evidence-on the point. (6)A cm:.nscl has no power lb make ~U1 admission in, or comprorrtise or refer to arbitration, a suit if he is insl111ded not to do so, withoul express authority from his cIient." . ~ 13. In (Babu) Sheoruwdafl Prasad Siugb afld Ottters (supra), the Privy Cm{Gdl expressed the view that the matter compromh;eti was coHa!eral to the suit and not'Dnly would it not be binding on the parties, 1)111 il would jn . any case also be a matter in respect of which the Court in pursuance of Order 23 Rule 3 should not niake a decree. 14. In National Trxtile Corpor"tiOIl (UP) Limited (,upra), the BCIlch was dealing w'jtll U,e stand of the respondent that after ratification by the LPA Nos. 298/10.10 & 299/2010 POY;'" 11 t't 30