PARMINDER SINGH Vs. VIRENDER PAL SINGH JOLLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision discloses the manner in which the justice delivery system can be crippled by the adoption of dilatory devices which can succeed only because the system is bursting at the seams owing to the perennial shortage of judicial officers. A change in the mindset is essential and unavoidable and the affliction of showing leniency towards the party adopting delaying tactics calls for a paradigm shift so that this malaise can be put to a swift and clinical death.

(2.) In the present case the Revisionist/Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Possession and Mesne profits almost fifteen years ago. The Written Statement was filed by the Defendant/Respondent in on 18.7.1988. This would have entailed the appointment of a pleader under Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure which enjoins the Advocate to appear in the case till his Vakalatnama is permitted to be withdrawn by specific orders of the Court. The frequent occurrence of Advocates choosing not to appear in cases on any ground is leading to a break down of the system. In the present case it has been stated that the Defendant/Tenant had taken away the file from his Advocate. This is not a sufficient reason for the Advocate to discontinue appearing before the Court. It is mandatory that leave or permission of the Court should be obtained for which a pre- condition is the issuance of a notice to the client/litigant which ought to ensure his presence in Court simultaneous with the grant of leave to the Advocate to withdraw from the case. Once a party is served it may be unnecessary to serve him once again since he is obliged to appear at every hearing either personally or through his Advocate and/or representative. Since our judicial system considers it an abhorrence to decide a case in the absence of a party, it oftentimes punctiliously conforms to procedure, even where it is obvious that the delinquent party is abusing this judicial concern. The Plaintiff in the present case has been allowed permission to sue as an indigent person which leads to the assumption that he did not possess the wherewithal to counter dishonest tactics of a Defendant who will obviously be benefited from any delay in the disposal of the suit.

(3.) The suit had been filed in September 1987 and the Written Statement was filed one year later. Unfortunately for the Plaintiff within another one year thereafter the suit was transferred to this Court. Parties were directed to appear on 8.8.1989. The Defendant did not appear and as a result this Court, in its anxiety to conform to procedural demands, issued summons to the Defendant on several occasions. This was done despite the fact that the defence of the Defendant in the form of his Written Statement had already been placed on the record through his duly appointed Advocate. Whilst a litigant may not possess requisite knowledge and expertise for tracing the movement of a case in Court this disability certainly does not apply to an Advocate. The Defendant's Advocate was, therefore, duty bound to appear on the adjourned dates for fear of being charged with and held accountable for dereliction of duty. Litigants would be justified to initiate action against their Advocates either before the Bar Council or by filing claims for damages for such lapses.