The High Court held that a writ appeal is not maintainable against an order passed on the consent of a party or on a concession granted by that party's counsel.
Writ appeal dismissed; miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ appeal also dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT APPEAL No. 1183 of 2016
JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J)
The writ appeal is filed as against an order passed on a consent or at least concession granted by the learned counsel for the appellant himself. It is a fundamental premise that an appeal would not lie against an order passed on the consent of a party.
If the appellant had not actually consented or if the learned counsel for the appellant had given a consent without an authority, the only course of action open to the appellant is to go back before the same learned single Judge. The appeal is not maintainable against such order. Hence, it is dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
3rd November, 2016 cbs
VRS,J & GSP,J WA No.1183 of 2016
2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN √ AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Appeal No.1183 of 2016 (Per VRS,J)
3rd November, 2016
cbs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ appeal is maintainable against an order passed upon the consent or concession of the appellant.
V. Ramasubramanian
G. Shyam Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
