JAGMAL Vs. TULA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT.

(2.) The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on the application of the appellant for readmission of the appeal which was dismissed in default on 24th August, 2003.

(3.) The case set up by the appellant in the application before the Additional District Judge was that the appeal was fixed for hearing on 24th August, 2003 when the son of the appellant who was also his attorney appeared before the court at 11.00 AM and requested for adjournment for filing documents. It was stated in the application that the case on such a request being made was adjourned to 23rd November, 2001. The son of the appellant after noting this date informed the counsel about the case having been adjourned to 23rd November, 2001 and the counsel made an entry of that date not only on the file of the case but also in his diary. It is submitted that when the appellant appeared in court on 23rd November, 2001 he did not find the case in the cause list of the court and on enquiries he came to know that the appeal was dismissed in default on 24th August, 2001. Immediately on coming to know of the appeal having been dismissed on 24th August, 2001, the appellant filed an application before the Additional District Judge for restoration of the appeal. It was submitted that due to some misunderstanding the son of the appellant had noted the next date of hearing as 23rd November, 2001 though the matter was not adjourned to the said date but was only passed over.