NARMADA MOTORS Vs. SUNIL KUMAR LAUVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present matter is filed for restoration of M.Cr.C. No. 9518/2013, which was dismissed in compliance to the order dated 12.12.2013, in which the respondent was not served and therefore, there is no need to hear the respondent.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicant on the main application of restoration and application for condonation of delay.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicant took two main grounds in the case. Firstly, that delay may be liberally condoned because the case was dismissed due to fault of the Advocate and party should not suffer for the mistake committed by the counsel. He has placed his reliance on various judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another", [ : AIR 1981 SC 1400], "State of Karnataka Vs. Kuppuswamy Gownder", [ : AIR 1987 SC 1354] and "N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy", [ : AIR 1998 SC 3222] to show the view of Hon'ble the Apex Court that delay may be condoned in favour of the concerned applicant, if a good cause has been shown or the matter was dismissed due to mistake committed by the Advocate. The second contention which was taken by the learned counsel for the applicant that it is the settled view of the Apex Court that due to mistake committed by an Advocate, the litigant should not be punished and therefore, matter be restored again.