(1.) FACTS in brief, as are necessary for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, proceeding under Section 163 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act were initiated against the petitioner by Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Mandi and vide order dated 5.1.1993, the petitioner was ordered to be evicted. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Collector, Sadar, Mandi on various grounds, however, before the appeal could be heard on merits, the same was dismissed in default on 3.10.2000. Application for restoration came to be filed on 27.1.2003. However, the matter remained pending before respondent No. 3 and ultimately vide order dated 20.1.2012, this application for restoration was rejected. The petitioner filed appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, who too dismissed the same and left with no other option he approached the Financial Commissioner, who too dismissed the Revision Petition. It is these orders, which have been challenged by the petitioner before this Court on the grounds that the authorities below should not have dismissed the appeal on mere technicalities and should have decide the case on merits.
(2.) IN response to the petition, the respondents in their reply supported the impugned orders and have further contended that the petitioner for his lapses cannot blame the respondents. It is further contended that ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner for being heard and sufficient time had been granted to him to defend the matter in the Courts below and the present petition has been filed only to prolong the eviction proceedings.
(3.) IT also cannot be lost site that a party, who as per the present adversary legal system, has selected his advocate, briefed him and paid his fee can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such an innocent party who has done everything in his power has expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, omission or misdemeanor of his counsel.