LAWS(GAU)-1983-11-3

NIRMAL DAS GUPTA Vs. PRASANTA DAS GUPTA

Decided On November 30, 1983
NIRMAL DAS GUPTA Appellant
V/S
PRASANTA DAS GUPTA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We despise slow motion justice and long distance litigation. Accordingly we propose to hear the appeal dispensing with the preparation of the paper book and the records of the Court below and the learned counsel for both the parties lent their support and agreed to the proposal to uphold the cause of justice. We record our appreciation for the stance taken in assisting the Court to dispose quick justice.

(2.) Misc. Appeal 30 of 1982 was filed by the appellant in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar. He had engaged lawyer. The appeal was posted for hearing on 27-11-1982 on which day it was called on for hearing but neither the appellant nor his advocate appeared whereupon the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal stating that he had been blissfully ignorant about the date of hearing, he had engaged lawyer and the dismissal amounted to inflicting penalty on him for the remiss of the lawyer. While turning down the prayer for restoration, learned Judge held that there was no necessity of the appellant's presence on the date of hearing and learned counsel was "responsible for delaying disposal of the appeal." So the learned Judge dismissed the application for restoration of the appeal with cost of Rs. 20/-. Hence the present appeal.

(3.) Can we sustain the impugned order of refusal to restore the appeal to file in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq v. Munsilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400. Therein, the Allahabad High Court disposed of the appeal in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant and the appellant being aware of the fact that his appeal had been disposed of in absence of his advocate, filed an application to recall the order of dismissal and permit him to prosecute the appeal. However, the High Court rejected the application on the ground that slackness on part of the learned advocate was writ large. While reversing the order of the High Court, the Supreme Court observed in Rafiq (supra) :