RAM NATH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal was listed on 7/05/1987 before a bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. L. Oza and Hon'ble Mi Justice K. N. Singh. The order recited : "heard learned counsel for the respondent for sufficient time. No one appears for the appellants. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in default".

(2.) This CMP was subsequently filed for recalling the order on the ground that the learned counsel was busy in the Delhi High court on that date. It was further stated there : "but when after arguing two cases viz. Company Petition No. 110 of 1983 Ishwar Singh v. Dharam Singh. (final hearing) and also other regular matter Suit No. 49 of 1976 A. C. Tamra v. Mercury Production (part-heard) in the High court of Delhi at New Delhi he (meaning therebythe counsel for the appellant) came to this Hon'ble court, he came to know that this appeal had reached for hearing and was dismissed for default. " This petition is signed not by the appellant but by M/s. Bagga and Co. , advocates for the appellant. It is verified by an affidavit of one P. K. Bajaj who states that he had been instructed to appear and argue the appeal. We, are not sure as to who is making this application and whether the appellant is at all aware of these events. We find no justification for recalling the order on the plea that the counsel was busy somewhere. We were not inclined to act upon this kind of plea but on the basis that otherwise the appellant would suffer loss for no fault of his, we have decided to hear the counsel. This practice should not be permitted in this court any further.

(3.) On perusal of the judgment of the High court we find no merit in this appeal. By the impugned judgment of the High court of Allahabad, writ petition was allowed and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25/10/1967 was quashed.