Regular Second Appeal No. 2505 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2505 of 2007 Date of decision : September 30, 2010 Sudesh Kumari and others ....Appellants versus Hans Raj ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate, for the appellants Mr. S.K. Sud, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by legal representatives of Kartara defendant since deceased. Suit was filed by respondent -plaintiff Hans Raj against Kartara. In the said suit, Kartara while contesting the suit also filed counter claim. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur Camp at Dasuya vide judgment and decree dated 6.5.2003 decreed the plaintiff's suit and dismissed the counter claim of defendant regarding 8 kanals 14 marlas land. In first appeal preferred by the defendant, he did not challenge the judgment and decree of the trial court to the extent of decreeing suit of the plaintiff- respondent but confined the claim in first appeal to the counter claim. Even Regular Second Appeal No. 2505 of 2007 -2- regarding counter claim, the claim was confined to 4 kanals 10 marlas land out of 8 kanals 14 marlas land mentioned in the original counter claim. Learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.2006 has decreed the counter claim of defendant regarding 4 kanals 10 marlas land. In spite thereof, legal representatives of the defendant have approached this Court by way of instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. As noticed herein before, the instant appeal is completely misconceived and abuse of process of law because the claim made by appellants' predecessor in the first appeal has been allowed by learned District Judge and consequently the appellants were left with no grievance and there was no occasion for them to have filed the instant second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that counter claim of the defendant regarding the entire land measuring 8 kanals 14 marlas should have been decreed. The contention is obviously untenable and completely frivolous and misconceived because in the first appeal, appellants' predecessor himself confined his claim to 4 kanals 10 marlas land which has been decreed. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to paragraph 5 of the grounds of appeal in the instant second appeal wherein it has been alleged that claim regarding remaining land was conceded by counsel representing appellants before the District Judge without instructions of the appellants. However, this plea would rather depict that counsel for the appellants in the lower appellate court did confine the claim to 4 kanals 10 marlas land instead of 8 kanals 14 marlas of original counter Regular Second Appeal No. 2505 of 2007 -3- claim. Consequently, learned District Judge was justified in decreeing the counter claim to the extent of 4 kanals 10 marlas land. The appellants cannot take summersault and now lay claim to 8 kanals 14 marlas land on the frivolous plea that their counsel confined the claim to 4 kanals 10 marlas without their instructions. Counsel had the authority to act and plead on behalf of the appellants and if the counsel did so, appellants are bound by the same. If submissions made by a counsel on behalf of the party being represented by him are allowed to be repudiated by the same party on the bald assertion that the submissions were made by the counsel without authority of the party, without even allegation of element of fraud or collusion or connivance with the opposite party, then the entire system of administration of justice would collapse and the counsel would be left with no authority to make any submissions or statements on behalf of the party being represented by him. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the instant appeal is completely meritless and is in fact vexatious and frivolous. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) September 30, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'