top of page

The party cannot resile from the statement once made before the court through his counsel: SC

Om prakash v Suresh kumar., Civil Appeal No. 833-834 of 2020 arising out of SLP(C) No. 5926-5927 of 2017 – January 30, 2020

The bench comprising of the Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta, Dinesh Maheshwari partly allowed the appeal.

The rent controller decreed the suit directing eviction of the respondent who is a monthly tenant, carrying business, from the suit premises which was owned by the appellant on the ground for reconstruction. The High court after looking into the Revision petition, C.R. No. 227/2015, filed by the tenant held that, the respondent of the present case shall be re inducted once the construction is said to be completed which is said to be the subject matter of the case and the appellant is liable to pay Rs.1000 per day,  if he fails to do so. Against this order, the appellant filed review petition by changing his counsel that he had never instructed regarding re induction of the respondent (the statement being made by the counsel of the appellant in C.R. No. 227/2015).

Based on the Special leave petitions, listed for admission, the issue framed by the bench is Whether the appellant should be bound by the statement made by his counsel before the High Court?

The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by the counsel before the High court is not binding on him by relying upon the decision in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society vs Balwan singh and others,.

The contention on the side of the respondent is that the appellant should be bound by the statement made by his counsel before the high court for re-induction of the respondent once the construction is said to be over and the appellant is liable to pay damages for delay of re induction of the respondent as the tenant.

On hearing both the sides, the bench views that it is clear that the appellant had expressly instructed his counsel to make such a statement before the High court and it was the subject matter of the proceedings in which the counsel was engaged and instructed to appear. So the appellant cannot resile from the statement and the decision in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing society will no be of avail to the appellant. The court held that, the appellant is obliged to abide by the unequivocal statement made before the High court to re induct the respondent- tenant in the newly constructed building in the front portion admeasuring 3.73 metres* 5.75 metres.

Thus, the bench partly allowed the appeal.

View/ Download the Judgment: Om prakash v Suresh kumar

– Prithisha S

Articles

bottom of page