MOHAMED ILIAS Vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is made by the counsel for petitioners supported by the affidavit of his Clerk explaining the reason as to why he was not present in Court when the petitions were called for preliminary hearing on 17-7-1987. The relevant portion of the affidavit in support of the prayer is as follows :-

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that there is no obligation on the part of the High Court to issue list to the counsel and that counsel should make their own arrangements to secure the copies of the list which are prepared by the High Court. The Court's obligation to lawyers in regard to the work listed for a week or for the following day ceases once the list is posted on the,Court's Notice Board or the Notice Boards of the Bar Association. Therefore, that the Lawyer's Clerk did not receive the list and as such he did not did not instruct the Lawyer to appear in Court as a result of which the counsel on record did not appear in Court, is no ground to recall the order. As is obvious from the order, the matter was passed-over once and only on reaching it again, it was dismissed for non-prosecution.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Lachi Tewari and others v. Director of Land Records and others (AIR 1984, SC Page41). In the said ruling, the Supreme Court has pointed out that parties who engaged Counsel to prosecute their litigation should not be penalised, because the Advocate had failed to appear before the Court on the specified data. No Court does it, and at the same time, the Court cannot over-look that the dts. cipline that is required to be enforced in order to make sure that our adversary system of dispensation of justice functions efficiently and does not crumble down, because the Lawyers are made te think they free to act as they like. No such dicta is laid down in the afore-mentioned decision. The delay that took place for bringing the matter for hearing and on account of the inability of the senior counsel to reach in time due to delayed air service or irregular air services from Calcutta and the pre-occupa- tion of the other two counsel in the other Courts were factors which the Supreme Court took notice.