SHRIMATI CHANDER KANTA Vs. SULEKH CHAND SUMER CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal affords a good example of how utter want of attention in lack of sense of responsibility on the part of an Advocate, leads to disastrous results in so far as the case of a party is concerned. Smt. Chander Kanta, filed a suit for possession of a room and the same was dismissed on 1st May, 1973 by the Subordinate Judge, Panipat. Feeling aggrieved, she filed an appeal on 8th June, 1973. On 5th August, 1975, when the appeal came on for hearing in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Karnal, the appellant and her counsel were absent. The appeal, therefore, was dismissed for default. The appellant filed an application for restoration of the appeal on 16th August, 1975, alleging that her counsel, Shri T.P. Singh Bedi, was to go to Kurukshetra to argue a case in the Court of the Sub Divisional Officer and as such he could not appear in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Karnal on 5th August, 1975. The said application was fixed up for hearing on 19th August, 1975. On that date also, neither the appellant nor her counsel was present, and, consequently, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed that application. I must strongly deprecate the practice of an Advocate keeping himself busy at other places without making proper arrangements. This conduct certainly amounts to negligence on the part of the Advocate. I feel that as far as possible the sins of an Advocate should not be allowed to visit on the party. Therefore, without the rights of the party being affected prejudicially, I think that the interest of justice would be met if I mulct the appellant in costs.

(2.) AT the outset, I desire to point out that I expect that an advocate for a party would conduct a case with all the sense of responsibility which he is expected to have in the discharge of his duty to his client. In cases where an appeal is dismissed for default where the question arises as to whether there are sufficient grounds for the restoration of the appeal, the courts would ordinarily be inclined to restore the appeal unless there has been gross negligence on the part of the party, because the Courts are there only for the advancement of justice and ordinarily would not be inclined to deprive a litigant of his right. As was observed by Lord Thankerton in the case of Sriniyas Parsad Singh v. Keshsava Parsad Singh, 63 Ind. App. 12 PC., every litigant has the right to have his case heard and disposed of but that right must not be abused....." Having regard to the principle as enunciated above, the party should not be made to suffer for the negligence or default of his Advocate and so far as the other party is concerned, as has always been held, costs are always a panacea for all ills, he could be compensated by way of costs for the inconvenience caused.

(3.) IN view of the above, I allow this appeal, set aside the order under appeal as also the order dated 19th August, 1975, and order the restoration of the appeal which shall be re -admitted on the cause list of the District Judge, on the condition that the appellant pays the respondent a sum of Rs. 150/ - on account of costs within a month of this order. This will be a condition precedent to the appeal being restored. If the amount of costs is not paid within the specified period, the application shall stand dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.