BAKSHI DEV RAJ & ANR. versus SUDHIR KUMAR

BAKSHI DEV RAJ & ANR. versus SUDHIR KUMAR

A Review Petition before the High Court against its judgment in Second Appeal is maintainable even after dismissal of SLP as withdrawn without leave; however, if the parties did not raise timely objection to their counsel's statement leading to compromise before the High Court, and the advocate acted within his authority under the Vakalatnama, the claim of the appellants cannot be entertained.

Parties
Appellant: Bakshi Dev Raj; Respondent: Sudhir Kumar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Review Dismissal
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Compromise of Suit, Review Petition, Role of Advocates, Withdrawal of Special Leave Petition, Doctrines of Merger and Maintainability
Civil Procedure Compromise of Suit Review Petition Role of Advocates Withdrawal of Special Leave Petition Doctrines of Merger and Maintainability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bakshi Dev Raj

Appellant

Sudhir Kumar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Review Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Review Petition filed before the High Court against the judgment in Second Appeal is maintainable after dismissal of SLP filed against the said Second Appeal
  2. 2 Whether the statement of the counsel conveying that the parties have settled and modified the decree without a written document or consent from the appellants is acceptable
  3. 3 Whether dismissal of SLP as withdrawn without leave of the Court is a bar for availing a further remedy

Ratio Decidendi

A Review Petition before the High Court against its judgment in Second Appeal is maintainable even after dismissal of SLP as withdrawn without leave; however, if the parties did not raise timely objection to their counsel's statement leading to compromise before the High Court, and the advocate acted within his authority under the Vakalatnama, the claim of the appellants cannot be entertained.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs