The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court. The observation was made while disallowing a review application filed against an order on the ground of an 'error apparent'.
The bench comprising Justice H.S. Madaan held that the counsel for the applicant had not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the applicant was trying to resile from the statement made by the earlier counsel and to re-argue the matter on merits, which is not permitted in law.
It noted that the instant review application has been filed by the counsel who was neither the filing counsel nor the arguing counsel nor was he present at the time of passing of the impugned order.
The court further noted that the revision petition was not pressed on merits by the counsel for the petitioner and it was stated by the counsel that he would withdraw the appeal pending before the Appellate Authority against the eviction order dated December 12, 2021. Therefore, the revision petition was disposed off on these mutually agreeable terms.
After considering these circumstances, court held that no objection taken by the counsel for the applicant from the earlier counsel would suffice since the petition was disposed off on the statements made by the counsel and only the counsel who had made a statement on 27.04.2022 would be able to say what had transpired on the said date.
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that he has taken no objection from the earlier counsel. However, the same would not suffice inasmuch as the petition was disposed off on the statements made by the counsel and none other than the counsel who had made a statement on 27.04.2022 would be in a position to say what had transpired on the said date.
Court relied on Supreme Court's judgement in Om Parkash Vs. Suresh Kumar [2020(13) SCC 188] and T.N.Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr. [1997(9) SCC 736] and held that the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly deprecated the conduct of the parties of changing their counsels and filing review petitions.
Court further concluded that the parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court.
The parties are bound by the statements made by their counsel in Court. It is not the case of the applicant that the counsel was not authorized to made the statement. Infact the only ground of review is that there is an error apparent on the record as the real facts were not put before this Court.
Therefore, court dismissed the application for being sans merit with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited with the Chandigarh Legal Aid Society.
Case Title : Ankush Rawat v. Guru Nanak Education Trust and Another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 114