PRABHAKAR NAGUESH TENDULKAR Vs. PUNDALIK HARISHCHANDRA FALARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) RULE . Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waives service.

(3.) SHRI Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, has pointed out that the Advocate who was appearing for the Petitioner, had sworn an affidavit stating that on account of his fault, the matter came to be dismissed for default. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Tribunal whilst passing the impugned Order has rejected the application essentially on the ground that the application was signed by the Advocate though the same was not filed by the Applicants themselves. Learned Counsel further pointed out that this aspect has been well settled by Judgment of this Court report in 1998(2) Goa L.T. 230 in the case of Union Bank of India vs. M/s. Gangadhar Narsingdas Agarwal & Ors. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the cause for default was in view of the fact that the Advocate appearing for the Petitioner was given a wrong date by the colleague who was requested to represent him on the earlier occasion. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Order and pointed out that the same deserves to be quashed adn set aside.