MANGAL RAM Vs. CHARANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for re-hearing of the appeal.

(2.) MR. Viney Mittal, learned counsel for the appellants states that the appeal had been originally filed by Mr Gurcharan Singh Gandhi but subsequently, he had been engaged on behalf of the appellants. He further states that in spite of the fact that Vakalatnama had been filed, his name was not shown in the Cause list. As a result, he was unable to appear when the case was taken up for hearing on November 3, 1992. 2. Notice of the application was given to learned counsel for the respondents. Reply has been filed.

(3.) AFTER haring learned counsel for the parties and perusing the application as well as the reply thereto, I am satisfied that Mr. Viney Mittal had sufficient cause for his non-appearance on November 3, 1992. It is known that the Cause list has a large number of cases. It is impossible for the counsel or his staff to remember each case, its number and names of parties. In such a situation, if the name of the counsel is not mentioned in the Cause list, his absence at the hearing cannot be said to be without sufficient cause. Accordingly, in spite of the fact that the appeal had been decided on November 3, 1992, I have heard Mr. Viney Mittal on the merits of his case.