KUBER NATH SRIVASTAVA Vs. PREET PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There can be no denial of the fact that the petitioner (and his counsel) have been guilty of gross neglect. But, the question is should he suffer being non-suited for reasons which are shown to be attributable more to his counsel.

(2.) The petitioner had instituted the suit (suit no.149/2006) on 30.03.2005 against the respondent seeking recovery of Rs.1,05,080/-. The suit was dismissed by the civil judge by judgment dated 04.11.2011. He filed regular civil appeal (RCA 26/2013) with some delay. The said appeal was thrown out by the first appellate court as time barred by order dated 08.01.2014. The petitioner approached this court by invoking the revisional jurisdiction (CRP 41/2014) which was allowed by a consent order dated 09.12014 setting aside the order dismissing the appeal as barred by delay, restoring it to be heard and disposed of on merits. By the said order, this Court fixed the date (06.01.2015) for the parties to appear before the District & Sessions Judge (West District), it being added that the District & Sessions Judge would mark the first appeal for disposal to a competent court in accordance with law, the rider being that the petitioner was to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as costs within a period of four weeks.

(3.) The appeal was taken up by the District & Sessions Judge (West) on 06.01.2015. She opted, in exercise of the discretion vested in her, to keep the matter on her board instead of being allocated to some other competent court as per the observations in the order of this Court. There was no appearance on the part of the petitioner till 12.24 p.m. The District & Sessions Judge was unable to wait further as she recorded that she would be on leave of absence in the post-lunch session. She noted the submission of the counsel for the defendant that costs had not been paid. Nonetheless she directed the matter to be renotified on 09.01.2015.