DEKONDA VENKATAIAH Vs. BOBBILI MALLAIAH DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against an order of the lower Appellate Court, refusing to restore the appeal, A.S.No. 49 of 1965, which was dismissed for default of appearance. The Advocate for the appellant failed to appear before the Court in view of the resolution of the Bar Association, Warangal to boycott the Courts in connection with the agitation for " a separate State for Telangana". To say the least, it is most unfortunate that the members of the Bar Association, representing a noble profession should take part in such activities and pass such a resolution. If the learned Counsel or the members of the bar wanted to take part in such agitation, the proper procedure is to have intimated to the party and withdrawn from the case or from the profession, but not to boycott Courts and have the appeals dismissed for default. THIS sort of conduct on the part of the advocate cannot be pardoned on any principle known to legal ethics. But, however, unpardonable his conduct may be, I do not think that the interest of the client should suffer. As it is a clear dereliction of duty on the part of the advocate to abstain himself from appearing before the Court, I think this is a fit case in which the Advocate should be penalised. As the Advocate did not inform the party, the party was not in a position to make other arrangements for the hearing of the case. In those circumstances, I hold that there is sufficient cause for the non-appearance. But in view of the gross dereliction of duty on the part of the Advocate, I direct him personally to pay a sum of Rs. 50 as costs to the opposite party as condition for restoration of this appeal. The amount will be deposited into the lower Court within one month from the date of the receipt of this order by that Court.

(2.) PENDING this appeal, the sole respondent died, but as the respondent did not appear in this Court after service, I have exempted the appellant under relevant rule from bringing the legal representatives on record. The appellant herein will, therefore, be permitted to implead the legal representatives as respondents in the lower Appellate Court. With the above direction the lower Appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal A.S. No. 49 of 1965 after payment of the costs. Appeal allowed.