LAWS(MAD)-1965-9-55

S. BALAN Vs. R. SARASWATHI BAI

Decided On September 03, 1965
S. BALAN Appellant
V/S
R. Saraswathi Bai Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After having heard Learned Counsel on both sides, I am satisfied that, in the interests of justice, this revision should be allowed. The facts are not in dispute. The learned Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court, sitting in appeal under the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, declined to accept an appeal from an order of eviction, which was presented before him, with a delay of four days. In other words, the learned Judge declined to condone this delay of four days. In my view, the learned Judge was not justified in making such an order, as the delay was really due to the inaction or negligence of the Learned Counsel for the party (appellant) who was entrusted by his client with the papers on 3rd December, 1964, so that he might obtain a certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller, for purposes of appeal, and who did not actually apply till 21st December, 1964. The Counsel filed an affidavit in the matter, in which he takes the blame upon himself in paragraph 3 of the affidavit.

(2.) In my view, when an Advocate comes forward with a submission in an affidavit of this character, it should ordinarily be accepted by Courts, unless, indeed the circumstances are very exceptional. The learned Judge has proceeded to the length of stating that he was unable to accept the ground given by the Advocate for the delay, as due to inadvertence and pressure of work in the criminal Courts, particularly as he had no clerk to assist him. I need not point out that Advocates are members of the learned profession of the law and even apart from their duties to their clients, are really in the situation of officers of Court, with the duty to strictly fulfil their obligations to their clients, and to the Courts administering justice. They cannot, and ought not to be, merely regarded as agents of private parties, as the learned Judge appears to think. There are no reasons for me to believe that the affidavit of the Advocate is not true, or that it is not worthy of acceptance. I accept the affidavit, and, since it accounts for the delay, condone the delay and allow the revision petition.

(3.) The order of the learned Chief Judge is set aside, and the House Rent Appeal should now be admitted and disposed of on the merits according to law. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner states that there is interim stay of delivery of the premises in his favour, which will enure only till 9th September, 1965. I direct that the records be expeditiously transmitted to the Court of appeal, and that the interim stay will continue till the end of this month, to enable the proceedings to be taken up and completed. No order as to costs.