ORDER : 1. The instant review petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 (1) CPC read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1949 for recalling the judgment dated 31.08.2021, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14783/2013. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the respondent had filed an application for eviction of the property on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona-fide necessity. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the Rent Eviction Tribunal decided both the issues of default in payment of rent and bona-fide necessity against the respondent. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had preferred an appeal before the Rent Appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal reversed the findings on both the issues. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order of Appellate Tribunal, filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.14783/2013 before this Court. 6. Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the writ petition the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent was referred to the Mediation Centre, however, the mediation efforts had failed and thereafter the matter was listed before this Court. 7. Learned counsel submitted that this Court on 31.08.2021 recorded the consent of counsels appearing for both the parties and disposed of the writ petition by granting six months time to vacate the premise. 8. Learned counsel submitted that both the counsels also mutually agreed that the rent @ 800/-per month is required to be paid till vacation of premise by February, 2022. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not aware about the order passed by this Court and further she did not give any instructions to her Advocate to enter into any compromise on her behalf in the matter. 10. Learned counsel submitted that the counsel concerned of the petitioner, did not inform about the decision dated 31.08.2021 and accordingly, the petitioner also did not give any undertaking before the Rent Tribunal as was directed by this Court and only in the Month of February, 2022, the petitioner came to know that she has to vacate the premise as the respondent had got an order from the High Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 31.08.2021 has been passed without appreciating the facts as well as the legal position. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order dated 31.08.2021 has been passed without appreciating the facts as well as the legal position. 12. Learned counsel submitted that learned Advocate, who was representing the petitioner exceeded his jurisdiction to enter into compromise, whereas the petitioner had never instructed her counsel to make such compromise/settlement. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Power (Vakalatnama) is a stereo-type document which is signed by the party and until there are clear instructions of the client, no Advocate can enter into compromise without having obtained consent from the litigant. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the outcome of the entire judgment has resulted into grave injustice ¼vU;k;½ to the petitioner and on account of entering into compromise, she should not be made to suffer. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.G.S.Gill submitted that if there are concurrent findings against the tenant in the eviction matters, usually the Courts are passing the order for providing time to the tenant to vacate the premise and where there is a reversal of finding, the compromise, if any, takes place between the parties, then the Court has to apply its judicious mind to decide the controversy. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Madras High Court in the judgment passed in the case of Thenal Ammal and Anr. Vs.Sokkammal and Ors. reported in 41 Ind Cas 429, considered the issue to enter into compromise by the counsel on behalf of his client and laid down that Vakalatnama does not give any authority to Lawyer/Vakil to enter into compromise without reference to his clients. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is in possession of requisite documents to show that the respondent was not the landlord and in fact there was an agreement between the parties to purchase the property by the petitioner and as such she had also purchased the requisite stamp papers and all these aspects were ignored by this Court. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor widow lady and on account of any concession given by learned counsel, she should not suffer from all times to come in her life in spite of having the title and possession of the property, she will be evicted in unlawful manner. 19. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a poor widow lady and on account of any concession given by learned counsel, she should not suffer from all times to come in her life in spite of having the title and possession of the property, she will be evicted in unlawful manner. 19. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 20. This Court finds that on 31.08.2021, when the matter was posted before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, counsels who were appearing before the Court gave their consent that the matter may be disposed of by granting six months time to vacate the premise and further consent was given to vacate the premise by February, 2022 and rent @ 800/- was also required to be paid. 21. This Court finds that if counsel appearing for the petitioner had given his consent to decide the writ petition on the basis of agreement, which parties had in their mind, then such kind of petition of the petitioner cannot be entertained by the Court, whereby now an allegation is levelled against the lawyer that he did not have any instructions to enter into compromise on her behalf. 22. This Court finds that any lawyer, who appears before the Court and represents his party, takes the decision in best interest of his litigant and as such in order to plead a given case properly or to give consent on behalf of his client or to enter into compromise, no personal motive may be attached to such an act of a lawyer. 23. This Court finds that if such kind of practice or tactic is permitted to be adopted by a litigant against his lawyer, situation may arise, where even litigants will straightway allege that they had not authorized their counsel to argue the matter in a particular manner and yet the matter was argued in such a manner, which is against their interest or result of the case has gone against him. 24. The relationship between the litigant and his counsel is of utmost importance and litigant has to keep complete faith and trust in his counsel and it has to be borne in mind that whatever lawyer does, he does in the best interest of his client. 25. 24. The relationship between the litigant and his counsel is of utmost importance and litigant has to keep complete faith and trust in his counsel and it has to be borne in mind that whatever lawyer does, he does in the best interest of his client. 25. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has never instructed or given any consent to his counsel to enter into compromise, cannot be accepted by this Court, this Court finds that Order 3 Rule 1 & 4 of CPC provides for appearance of recognised agent or any pleader before the Courts of law. The Power-Vakalatnama, which is filed before the Court includes all the situations, where lawyers can act according to best interest of their client. The power of entering into compromise on behalf of a litigant is also specifically mentioned in the Power (Vakalatnama) and if the lawyer has entered into compromise on behalf of his client, as per instructions given to him, no motive can be attached to the lawyer that he has acted against interest of his client. 26. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed writ petition and even the dispute, which was referred to the mediation centre, ‘failed’ and there was a reversal of finding, as such, there was no occasion to enter into compromise on her behalf, suffice it to say by this Court that if at the time of making submissions, lawyer appearing for the petitioner thought to exercise the best available option and instead of having dismissal of the writ petition, if time was granted by the Court to vacate the premise, the same cannot be allowed to be reopened by way of review petition. 27. There is no quarrel on the proposition that any litigant, who engages Advocate on his behalf has to instruct him to plead on his behalf, however, the legal acumen required by his lawyer is displayed by him in the Court but later plea of a litigant that a particular point of law was required to be placed before the Court, the same cannot be accepted as it is the sole domain of a lawyer concerned to act in the best interest of his client. 28. 28. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that grave injustice has been caused to the petitioner who is a poor and widow lady and as such in the interest of *lR; vkSj U;k;*] this Court is required to review the order passed by this Court dated 31.08.2021, this Court finds that if this kind of plea of a litigant will be accepted by the Court, the very foundation of legal system, where lawyers act on behalf of their client, will fall apart. 29. This Court finds that the order dated 31.08.2021 has been passed, as per instructions given to the counsel appearing for the parties and accordingly the case has been decided by this Court. 30. As regards, the reliance placed by counsel for the petitioner on the judgment passed by the Madras High Court in the case of Jagapathy Mudaliar Vs. Ekambara Mudaliar reported in (1898) 8 MLJ 40 , this Court finds that the Madras High Court has relied upon certain judgments passed by the England Court in the case of Mathews Vs. Munster reported in (1888) 20 Q. B.D. 141. 31. This Court finds that Order 3 Rule 1 CPC provides for appearance of pleader & Rule 4 provides for appointment of a pleader by way of a document to be filed in a Court. The document of authorization or Vakalatnama includes various acts to be done by an Advocate including right to enter into compromise on behalf of his/her litigant. 32. This Court finds that Full Bench of Nagpur High Court in the case of Jiwibai Vs. Ramkumar reported in AIR 1947 Nag 17 has held that counsel has an inherent Implied authority to compromise the case in which he is engaged. 33. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case of Byram Pestonji Gariwala Vs. Union Bank of India and Ors. reported in 1991 AIR SC 2234, while relying upon the case of Sourendra Nath Mitra and Ors. Vs. Tarubala Dasi reported in AIR 1930 PC 158 , has held that the power to compromise a suit is inherently vested with the Advocates in India. 34. This Court, accordingly finds no ground is made out to recall the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14783/2013. 35. Accordingly, the present review petition stands dismissed.