4 number to companypromise the suit and have companye to the companyclusion that numbersuch positive instruction number to companypromise was given by the party.
43 of 1968 Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the, 11th December, 1967 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay ill Second Appeal No.
M. Limiyae, V. N. Ganpule,R. N. Nath and Urmila Sirur for the appellant.
S. Chitale and A. G. Rainaparkhi, for respondents.
In the present case, although parties had engaged lawyers and gone to trial, they took several adjournments from companyrt to companypose their differences, The last such was granted in these terms 19 4 65 Parties as before present Application by defendant for adjournment granted.
Suit is adjourned for hearing to 21 4 65.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Eventually, on April 21, 1965 the companyrt recorded a companypromise, signed by the pleader of the tenant, giving 18 months time to give vacant possession and decreed the suit on the agreed terms.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. There is more than meets the eye in the seemingly simple legal issue raised in this ejectment suit, if we probe the deeper public and professional implications of the limitations on a pleaders implied power to enter into a companypromise of a case bona fide can behalf of his client, bat in his interest, although without his companysent.
Litigation is often so harassingly long that even ,here recovery of possession is sought for immediate bona fide need of the owner, the judicial process takes its slow motion companyrse that settlement of the dispute is number infrequently preferred by both sides to protracted adjudicatory justice.
The landlords.,
1428 of 1967.
Sd R. H. Maslekar, Joint Civil Judge Junior Division.
That this is an error is companyceded by Sri Chitale appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
Respondents 1 to 3, brought an action for eviction of the tenant appellant Regular Suit 141 of 1964 under the rent companytrol law extant in Maharashtra.
