Hari Om Mehta vs Nirmal Das & Anr
2013 Latest Caselaw 1805 Del

*                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                          FAO No.180/2005
                                         Decided on : 22nd April, 2013

HARI OM MEHTA                                         ..... Appellant
            Through:               Mr. Nishant Datta, Ms. Sampath Sudha
                                   and Ms. Garima Hooda, Advocates.

                          versus

NIRMAL DAS & ANR                                     ..... Respondents
             Through:              Mr. G.S. Sharma, Advocate.
                                   Ms. Priya Kumar & Mr. Adhish
                                   Srivastava, Advocates for Mr. Rohit
                                   Gandhi, Advocate in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

Rev. Pet. No.119/2011

1. This is an application for review of the order dated 24 th November,

2010.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and

gone through the record.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that

the present appeal was dismissed as having become infrucutous

and as withdrawn on account of the statement purported to have

been made by Mr.Rohit Gandhi, counsel for the appellant on

24.11.2010 to the effect that since Gurbux Singh, legal heir of

Nirmal Das has further obtained probate accordingly, the appellant

be permitted to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to

challenge both the probates; one which was granted in favour of

Nirmal Das and the other which has been obtained by Gurbux

Singh. The ground for recall or review of the order dated

24.11.2010 was that Mr.Rohit Gandhi, learned counsel had not

obtained instructions from the appellant for the purpose of

withdrawing the appeal.

4. The scope of review is very limited. As per Order 47 Rule 1, a

review application would lie only when there is an error apparent

on the face of the record or some evidence which was not earlier

within the knowledge and the control of the party has been

discovered by him.

5. Admittedly, these are not two reasons for which the review

application has been filed in the instant case. The review

application has been filed primarily on the ground that the counsel

was not authorized to make a statement seeking dismissal of the

present appeal as having become infructuous and seeking

withdrawal on account of subsequent developments. The

vakalatnama which has been signed by the party clearly mentions

that a party will be bound by any statement of fact made by the

counsel.

6. In the instant case, the statement which has been made by Mr.Rohit

Gandhi is a statement of fact and the appellant is bound by the

same. If the appellant is permitted to withdraw from the statement

made by his counsel on the ground that his counsel was not duly

authorized to make such statement, then it will lead to various

serious consequences inasmuch as, at any point of time when the

counsel makes a statement, a party may turn around and say that

the counsel did not have requisite authorization. This will be

against the terms of vakalatnama signed by him as well as it will

keep the litigation open for all times to come.

7. The review application in my view does not have any merit, and

accordingly, the same is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 22, 2013/RN