KAUSHAL COMMODITIES PVT. LTD. Vs. BRINDABAN MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On February 1, 2001 when the matter was heard and submission was made by Mr. Soumitra Sen, Mr. Das was not available and this Court recorded the submission and contention as follows:

(2.) On February 8, 2001 Mr. Das made his submission and contended that apart from other allegations raised on behalf of the Plaintiffs admittedly Mr. Debasis Kundu learned lawyer did not appear on the date when the order was passed. He draws my attention to the relevant paragraphs of affidavit affirmed by Mr. Debasis Kundu and submits that he could not appear because of his inability owing to an accident he met and could not reach Calcutta from Siliguri.

(3.) He further submits that when there was understanding between Debasis Kundu and the Advocate -on -Record of the Plaintiff that the matter should not be pressed for hearing on the day in view of non -availability of Mr. Kundu it was in all fairness the learned lawyer for the Petitioner/Plaintiff should have drawn attention of the Court of the arrangement. Had it been done so this Hon'ble Court would not have taken up this matter so much so his client would have had an opportunity of being represented by his learned lawyer. Therefore, according to him, there exist lapses on part of the learned lawyer either deliberate or in deliberate by not making his appearance on behalf of his client. He contends, that this constitutes sufficient cause and/or reason. The law is now well settled for which no decision is required to be cited.