In a reiteration of the sanctity of courtroom concessions, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a litigant cannot resile from consent given by his counsel and challenge an order founded upon such consent, unless the consent is shown to be vitiated by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or patent lack of jurisdiction.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal while considering a writ petition assailing a revisional order that had been passed with the consent of the lawyers appearing for the parties. Refusing to interfere, the Court held that once consent is recorded and an order is passed on that basis, the party represented is estopped in law from turning around and questioning the same.

The Court emphasized that Advocates act as authorized agents of the parties they represent. Statements, concessions and consent given by counsel during judicial proceedings bind their clients. It is immaterial that the terms of consent are not separately reduced into writing; if the order itself discloses that it was passed on consent between counsel, its binding character remains intact.

Placing reliance on Sooba and another vs. Amar Nath Krishan Lal (1987), the Court reiterated that a decree passed on counsel’s consent cannot be challenged by disputing the authority or validity of such consent at a later stage. It also drew support from the ruling of the Supreme Court of India in Ajanta LLP vs. Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd. and another, which affirms that a consent decree creates an estoppel by judgment and cannot be reopened except on narrowly defined grounds.

The Court as such held that what is conceded in court through authorized counsel binds the client, and orders passed on such consent attain finality unless vitiated on legally sustainable grounds.