KHATOON BIBI Vs. RAMNATH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri R.S. Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for applicants and perused the record. This is a review application filed on behalf of the respondent for review of my judgment dated 05.12.2011.

(2.) THE theme song of entire argument is that the impugned judgment passed by this Court is without any opportunity to applicants to file objections to the report dated 07.11.2008 submitted by Prescribed Authority pursuant to this Court's order dated 24.09.2008 and, therefore, the judgment has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice.

(3.) AFTER the death of Sri Ram Nath, substitution application was filed which was allowed by this Court on 24.02.2011 and legal heirs of Sri Ram Nath were substituted as respondents in this case. Notices were issued to them. It is admitted that after receiving notices, the applicants executed Vakalatnama in favour of same counsel, namely, Sri R.S. Tripathi. The Vakalatnama contained the date as 30.09.2011, therefore, atleast on this date they authorised Sri Tripathi, Advocate to represent them. Sri Tripathi, submitted that since the case was listed on 30.09.2011 but Court did not sit, therefore, Vakalatnama was not filed and it remained with him. Under the Rules once Vakalatnama is executed in a pending case, it ought to have been filed and could have been filed in the Registry and thereafter whenever the case is listed, it would show name(s) of learned counsels for the parties. For the reasons best known to applicants and their counsel, it was not done. It also remain a fact that Sri Tripathi, Advocate was well aware that a report was submitted in which original respondent was allowed time to file objection but none was filed. It is only when this case was taken up before this Court on 05.12.2011, an adjournment was sought with a request that he may be allowed time to file objection. Looking to the entire background of the case the Court declined to accept the request of adjournment. In these circumstances it cannot be said that no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to file objection to the report of Prescribed Authority.