GANGA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 25-4-1985 allowing the appeal filed by State and Gaon Sabha against the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Mainpuri dated 4-7-1983.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the revisionist had not been heard by the Additional Commissioner and the appeal had been decided ex-parte against him. Hence the case of the revisionist has been Prejudiced mis-carriage of justice has occurred. From the Judgement of the Additional Commissioner I find that even though the counsel for the revisionist was present in the court but he refrained from arguing the appeal on the pretext that he had no instructions. The learned Additional Commissioner should have found out whether the present revisionist had personally received the notice of that date or not, so that he could arrange another counsel or could himself argue about the case. The learned Additional Commissioner did not make any such enquiry and right away proceeded to decide the appeal treating the revisionist absent in spite of the lack of evidence of sufficient notice I am therefore, of the opinion that a gross injustice had been done to the revisionist merely for the fault of his lawyer who did not put forward his argument even though he was present in the court, It was unfair on the part of the counsel however the client - has not to sutler tor the fault of his lawyer, hence it is expedient in the interest of justice that the appeal be remanded back to the learned Additional Commissioner to be heard on merits again The revisionist is advised to have his counsel pre-instructed so that such occasion may not arise again.