JAI LAL JANGRA Vs. THE GOVT. OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against order dated August 3, 1988 passed by Sub Judge 1st Class, Chandigarh dismissing application for restoration of the suit which was dismissed in default.

(2.) J.L. Jangra had filed a civil suit for declaration which was dismissed in default as his counsel did not put in appearance on March 25, 1987. An application was filed for setting aside the aforesaid order and for restoration of the suit on the ground that Slid V.K. Vashishth, Advocate for the Plaintiff -Petitioner, had gone out of station with the directions to Shri B.K. Sharma Advocate to put in appearance. However, Shri B.K. Sharma did not put in appearance on account of tooth -ache. This application for restoration of the suit was contested by the defendant and the following issues were framed:

(3.) Two witnesses were produced by the Plaintiff AW 1 Megh Raj, Clerk of Shri V.K. Vashishth, Advocate and AW 2 Harbans Lal Clerk of Shri B.K. Sharma Advocate, and on behalf of the defendant RW 1 Kishori Lal was produced. The trial Court decided issue No. 1 against the Plaintiff and dismissed the application. AW 1 Megh Raj has categorically stated that on the date fixed Shri V.K. Vashishth had gone oat of station. AW 2 Harbans Lal stated that Shri B.K. Sharma went to his house from the Court on Account of the tooth -ache on the relevant date. No doubt, they have further deposed about their visits to the Court making enquiries from the court -official regarding the orders passed or to be passed but they are of no significance. The fact remains that Shri Vashishth, Advocate for the Plaintiff had gone out of station and was thus unable to attend the Court when the cases was called. No doubt he had taken steps to inform the Court about his absence and had given direction to another Advocate to put in appearance and for certain reason he could not appear when the case was called. There was no reason to discard the evidence of AW 1 Megh Raj that Mr. Vashishth had gone out of station could not appear when the case was called. This is treated as a sufficient cause for restoration of the suit. Litigant is not to suffer for negligence of the lawyer. The finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 is reversed.