H ABDUL SATTAR Vs. K M RAJASHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was the applicant before the Tribunal and the claim petition as against respondent 1 who is the owner of the bus came to be dismissed. The reason for this was because respondent 1 was not served and the Court desired to proceed with the matter. The learned Advocate was asked to complete the formalities and exactly half-a-dozen dates of hearing elapsed thereafter when absolutely nothing was done. On the following date of hearing the Court had no option except to dismiss the proceeding as against respondent 1. At that stage, the petitioner's learned Advocate made an application for recalling the order. It is interesting however to point out that even this application was made nine months after the date of dismissal. The sequence of events itself indicates as to how this litigation was being conducted and when the application was made for recalling the order, the learned Judge has pointed out that more than adequate opportunities were given to the learned advocate and his client despite which the formalities were not complied with. Since no valid ground was shown, the Court refused to recall the order. This civil revision petition is directed against that order. The petitioner's learned Advocate states that the petitioner had moved to some other area and this is the reason why the communications from his Advocate did not reach him. Such an excuse is hardly tenable because a party to a litigation, irrespective of whether or not the party is represented by a lawyer is under a personal obligation to follow up that litigation and if this is not done, the inevitable conclusion is that the litigant is not interested in the proceeding in which case, the advocate is rendered helpless and the Court will be left with no option except to dismiss the case. It has become customary for the Advocates to blame the clients and for the clients to file affidavits that they should not be punished for the lapses of the lawyer. Between these two situations, the Courts are expected to merrily and mechanically restore proceedings irrespective of how much dislocation it causes to the Court. This roughly is the situation also in the present case.

(2.) THERE is virtually no ground made out on which the order of dismissal passed by the Court could normally be recalled. The only difficulty is that the petitioner did suffer very serious injuries and, because of these negligent acts the petitioner would be totally disqualified from even agitating the claim for compensation. In the facts of the present case, this is an overwhelming consideration which would require that the parties who are negligent should be directed to make amends and the proceedings should be disposed of on merits. The original respondent 1 has been served in the present proceeding and there should be no difficulty in serving him before the tribunal. The impugned order is set aside though I need to record that I am doing so with a degree of reluctance. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 4-11-1996 for further orders and the petitioner and his learned advocate shall ensure that respondent 1 is served within an outer limit of four weeks from that date and if this is not done, the Tribunal shall dismiss the whole proceeding.

(3.) HAVING regard to the facts of this case, I consider it appropriate that costs quantified at Rs. 501/- shall be paid to the advocates Welfare Association and that this shall be done within an outer limit of four weeks from today. The receipt of payment shall be produced before the Tribunal and it is made clear that if there is any default, this civil revision petition shall be treated as having been dismissed.