HARJINDER SINGH Vs. KIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 11.9.1999, passed by the Distt. Judge, Hoshiarpur, who dismissed the application of the present petitioner-appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) SOME facts can be noticed in the following manner :-

(3.) THE only material point for determination before this Court is as to what is the duty of the Court when a lawyer pleads no instructions on behalf of his client. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Smt. Daryai and others, 1996(4) SCT 127 (P&H) : 1996(2) CCC 646 (P&H) and stated that when a lawyer pleads no instructions, it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to serve a notice to the client and such a client must suffer irrespective of the fact that his lawyer has not given the appearance on his behalf. Mr. Saini also submitted that the conduct of the lawyer and the defendant indicates that sufficient opportunity was given by the trial Court to the defendant to lead the evidence in rebuttal but inspite of seven opportunities given to the defendant, he has not cared to come in the witness box nor he has examined any witness and, in these circumstances, the ex-parte decree has been rightly passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-petitioner.