Chandigarh, May 23, 2022:The Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasized that the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly deprecated the conduct of the parties in changing their counsels and filing review petitions.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Alka Sarin has asserted, “The applicant by filing the present application is wanting to resile from the statement made by the earlier counsel and to re-argue the matter on merits, which cannot be permitted in law. The parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court.”
Here, the Court was dealing with an application filed for review of the order dated April 27, 2022, on the ground that there was an error apparent on the record as real facts were not put forth before the Court.
The present application for review was filed by a counsel who was neither the filing counsel nor the arguing counsel.
From the impugned order, the Court observed that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner did not press the revision petition on merits and also made a statement that he would withdraw the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority against the eviction order of December 2021.
The Counsel further stated that he was willing to pay the entire arrears of rent and future rent/compensation for use and occupation of the premises in case he was granted a period of 09 months for vacating the same since he was running his shop in the said premises since 1973.
The Counsel for the respondents apprised the Court of the fact that the respondents did not have any objection to giving 09 months’ time to the petitioner to vacate the premises provided the entire arrears were cleared within a period of 15 days and the future rent/compensation for use and occupation was paid by the 10th of every month.
In view of the statements made by the counsels, the petition was disposed of.
The counsel for the applicant firstly contended that he obtained no objection from the earlier counsel who appeared before the Court on an earlier hearing. Further, the Counsel contended that the error apparent on the face of the record was that certain facts were not brought to the notice of the Court and thus the order was to be reviewed and considered on merits.
The Court observed that although the counsel for the applicant contended that he took no objection from the earlier counsel, however, the same would not suffice inasmuch as the petition was disposed of on the statements made by the counsel and thus none other than the counsel who made a statement on April 27, 2022, would be in a position to say what transpired on the said date.
Further, Justice Sarin asserted that the Supreme Court of India repeatedly deprecated the conduct of the parties changing their counsels and filing review petitions. Support qua the same was drawn from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Parkash Vs. Suresh Kumar and T. N. Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr.
Also, the Court was of the view that the counsel for the applicant was not able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. The applicant by filing the present application is wanting to resile from the statement made by the earlier counsel and to re-argue the matter on merits, which cannot be permitted in law, the Court held.
Against this backdrop, the Court held that the parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court.
Also, the Court considered the fact that the applicant’s counsel was authorized to make the statement and that the only ground of review was that there was an error apparent on the record as the real facts were not put before the Court.
In view of the above, the Court did not find any merit in the present application and the same was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs 20,000 to be deposited with the Chandigarh Legal Aid Society.