RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ, order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dtd. 2/9/2014 (Annexure P/6) passed by Financial Commissioners, Haryana, whereby application filed by the petitioner for restoration of ROR No. 92/2007 has been dismissed.

(2.) It needs to be mentioned here that earlier the same very revision petition was dismissed in default on 1/7/2008 and 16/9/2008 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, it has been again dismissed in default on 7/5/2013 for non-prosecution as neither the petitioner nor his counsel had appeared. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for restoration of revision petition, which has been dismissed vide order dtd. 2/9/2014 (Annexure P/6) by the Financial Commissioners. It is well-settled law that a party cannot be made to suffer due to fault of his advocate.

(3.) In Rafiq and Anr. v. Munshilal and Anr. AIR 1981 SC 140 and Smt. Lachi and Ors. v. Director of Land Records and Ors. AIR 1984 SC 41 while dealing with a similar issue held that a litigant cannot suffer for the fault of his counsel. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the former case observed as under: