Summary
Recall of an appellate specific-performance judgment merely because the appearing advocate lacked a written vakalatnama was reversed on these facts. The respondent had been duly served, the arguments advanced protected his interests, and no collusive submission was identified. Affidavits supported oral authority, and the allegedly omitted injunction argument had actually been considered. Even accepting denial of appointment, his choice not to appear after service did not justify recall.
Issues
- Whether absence of a written vakalatnama justified recall despite completed service and substantive representation without demonstrated collusion.
Held
- Repeated service steps culminated in a formal finding of complete service. A duly served respondent who chose not to appear could not demand recall merely on the ground that he was not heard. (¶¶ 10–11, 14)
- Counsel advanced substantial arguments opposing specific performance; none was shown to favour the opposing party collusively. Supporting affidavits of oral authority were credible, and counsel’s much earlier appearance in an intra-family contempt dispute did not establish conflict in the later common defence. (¶ 11–12)
- The injunction argument said to have been omitted had been addressed in the judgment. Earlier settlement discussions did not prevent hearing after negotiations failed. (¶ 13)
- Even assuming no authority had been granted and disregarding counsel’s submissions, completed service and the unchanged outcome defeated the proposed recall in these circumstances. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court review judgment recalling the specific-performance decree set aside, restoring the appellate judgment.