RUDRA NARAIN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned coun sel for the appellant and the learned State Counsel.

(2.) THE writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service filed by the appellant (petitioner) was dismissed in default vide order dated 1-10-1997. THE restoration appli cation filed by the appellant (petitioner) was also rejected vide order dated 10-1-2000. THEreafter again an application for restoration was moved by the petitioner (appellant) which was again dismissed on 29-1-2002.

(3.) FOR the fault of the lawyer, if a case is not prosecuted diligently and is dismissed in default, the litigant cannot be subjected to any punishment as he is not supposed to be present on every hearing nor there is any mechanism to intimate him about the date fixed and that too well in advance so that he may make ar rangement to come to the Court, if he is liv ing in a far away district or even otherwise if he has to make arrangement to come to the Court. In a case where lawyer has died, natu rally the information is sent by the office of the lawyers or by the Court also but still, there may be cases where such information does not actually reach to the litigant and there fore, when he approaches the Court, a lenient view ought to be taken so as not to deprive the litigant his right of remedy before the Court. Of course, if it is found that there are reasons which do not permit such a lenient attitude necessary orders are accordingly to be passed but this should be done in rare cases.