Madras High Court
M.Govindaraj vs The District Collector on 29 November, 2021
W.P(MD)No.20538 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :29.11.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P(MD).No.20538 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.17177 of 2021
M.Govindaraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Collectorate Post, Dindigul-624 004.
2.The Corporation Commissioner,
Office of the Corporation Commissioner,
Main Road, Dindigul-624 001. ...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second
respondent to allot a shop to the petitioner at attached to the complex situated at
Kamarajar bus stand, Dindigul Corporation, Dindigul as per undertaking memo
filed by the second respondent, dated 10.10.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
W.P(MD)No.20538 of 2021
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabhu
For R1 : Mr.S.Shanmugavel
Additional Government Pleader
For R2 : Mr.Veerakathiravan
Additional Advocate General
(Assisted by Mr.J.Lawrance
Standing Counsel)
ORDER
The writ petitioner herein, had the benefit of running a shop at Kamarajar
bus stand, Dindigul. The second respondent/Commissioner, Dindigul
Corporation, had taken a conscious decision to demolish shops in Kamarajar
Bus Stand and to rebuild shops and notification in this regard had been issued
that was necessitated owing to the Smart City Project at the initiative of the
second respondent.
2.Questioning such notification, the petitioner herein, had filed, O.S.No.
492 of 2017, before the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. During the
pendency of the said suit, the second respondent herein/defendant therein filed
an undertaking memo to allot one particular shop to the petitioner therein. This
particular undertaking has been filed which had been signed only by the
Advocate for the second respondent herein/defendant therein. It was not signed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20538 of 2021
by the actual defendant/Commissioner, Dindigul Corporation. The evidentiary
value of the said undertaking affidavit can be decided only by putting the
Advocate in the witness box and examine him as to how and under what
circumstances, he had the authority to sign such a Memo.
3.Any Advocate, on the strength of a vakalat, can enter into a settlement
on behalf of his client, but every such document, wherein a right of the client, is
given up or is agreed to be compromised, must also be signed by the client who
agreed to such a settlement or compromise. Unilateral signature by the learned
Counsel may not, by any stretch of imagination, bind the particular client.
There is an existing contract when a vakalat is filed and that contract extends to
do all acts on behalf of the particular client for whom the vakalat is filed. But
when rights are given up or rights are entered into compromise, then, it is
imperative that both of the Advocate and the client signed the particular
document.
4.The particular affidavit had come up for consideration before the
learned Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, who gave a judgment on
10.10.2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20538 of 2021
5.I quite wonder at the decree passed on an undertaking which was not
binding on the parties. The learned Additional District Munsif passed a decree
in which he had stated that the suit is “closed”.
6.The word “closed” does not find place anywhere in the Code of Civil
Procedure. A suit may be dismissed. It may be decreed. Parties may enter into
compromise either at the instance of the Court or at the it own instance.
Compromise may also be entered into between the parties, but still such a
compromise again should be presented before the Court and a decree must be
framed in terms of the said compromise.
7.There must be a particular result given and the parties must know
whether the relief they have sought, has been granted or rejected. They must
know whether the suit has been decreed or a suit has been dismissed. Using the
word “closed” will not be to the benefit of either one the plaintiff or the
defendant.
8.On the face of it, the judgment and decree will necessarily have to be
interfered with. Even though this is a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, I am within my rights to take it up also as a revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20538 of 2021
under Article 227 of the Constitution and strike down the entire judgment and
decree, dated 10.10.2018 and interfere with the said judgment and decree.
9.The entire proceedings is not lawful. No right flowed to the plaintiffs
but no rights of the defendants have been taken away. Plaintiff has to suffer
owing to this particular fact. I also hold that in view of this particular aspect,
no relief can also be granted to the petitioner herein.
10.This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
29.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
lr/sn
To
1.The District Collector,
Office of the District Collector,
Collectorate Post, Dindigul-624 004.
2.The Corporation Commissioner,
Office of the Corporation Commissioner,
Main Road, Dindigul-624 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.20538 of 2021
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
lr/sn
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
W.P(MD).No.20538 of 2021
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.17177 of 2021
29.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
