MAGHRAJ CALLA Vs. KAJODI MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision raises an interesting issue. It arises in the following circumstances.

(2.) The respondent has filed a suit against the petitioner, then an advocate, for damages, on allegations that he was negligent in discharge of his duties qua the plaintiff as client; as, he failed to act with due diligence and promptitude, after brief for filing an appeal to the Rajasthan. Civil Service Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal) was entrusted to him in respect of an order compulsorily retiring the plaintiff from the State services. According to the plaintiff, due to negligent conduct of the advocate-defendant, the appeal could not be filed in time, which was eventually dismissed as time-barred by the Tribunal and, later on, a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by this Court on 20/10/1980. It may also be noticed here that, in the first instance, in the appeal filed by the plaintiff before the Tribunal through the defendant-advocate, an application supported by an affidavit of plaintiff, under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning delay in filing the appeal was moved, in which it was alleged that the plaintiff was under a bona fide impression that appeal did not lay to the Tribunal because of the controversy relating to jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain appeals against orders of compulsory retirement. However, later on, the present plaintiff engaged another counsel and filed another affidavit, taking the plea that because of the negligent conduct of the counsel on the very same grounds, which are now subject matter of the suit, the plaintiff was precluded from filing appeal in time and, therefore, he had sufficient cause for not filing appeal within time and for condonation of delay. This plea did not find favour with the Tribunal, which recorded its finding in the following manner " . . . . . We do not agree with him that it is a mistake or misconduct of the counsel in delaying the presentation of the appeal . . . . ."

(3.) The Tribunal further went on to hold that the appellant himself was negligent and did not care to see that the appeal is filed in time.