Court held that Advocate cannot be deemed to have been vested with the right as a brief -holder to compromise the issue before the High Court , or express the consent of the appellant tenants , to an order proposed by the High Court . Order of High Court is restored and requested to hear the matter in accordance with law . ( CA No. 183 -84 of 2015 dt 30 -1 -2015
Ram Prakash v Puttan Lal ( 2020) 14 SCC 418
Advocates Act, 1961
S. 33 :Advocates alone entitle to practice – Concession by counsel – Rent control and Eviction Compromise / Consent Degree – Compromise by an Advocate without having such right – Held to be not valid [ S.34 , Civil procedure Code , 1908 Or 3, 23, R. 3 , ]