PRITAM LAL TREHAN Vs. PIARA LAL SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant through learned Advocate Sh. R.P. Bakshi. Earlier, Mr. Bakshi, Advocate has appeared in this matter. The matter was ordered to be set down for final hearing in the week commencing from 25th Nov., 2002. The operation of the judgment has also been stayed.

(2.) ON the last occasion namely 7th Feb., 2003, when the matter was listed for hearing, neither Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate, nor any other Advocate for the appellant remained present. On behalf of the appellant, request was made to adjourn the matter. A strong objection was raised by the other -side about the manner in which the adjournment is sought. However, with a view to give a last opportunity the matter was adjourned on that date to today. It was specifically conveyed to the party in person that if the Advocate for the appellant is not present, the stay shall be vacated and the matter shall be dismissed for non -prosecution. Even today, Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate, has not remained present before the Court. Surprisingly, the party in person has placed before the Court a fax message sent to the party inter -alia seeking an adjournment as the counsel, Mr. Anil Kher, is suffering with viral fever and he has cancelled his visit to Jammu. When it was conveyed , it was for the party in person to make arrangement so that the matter proceeds. Today , neither Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate, has taken care to remain present in the Court despite order nor any other counsel has bothered to appear.

(3.) IT becomes the duty of the Advocate concerned, if he is not in a position to remain present, to convey the information to the Advocate for the other side so that one can manage work accordingly.