LAL MOHD Vs. HAROON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision No. 53/1985, was decided by this Court vide its order dated 16-10-1984. Against this order, the petitioner filed a Review Application No. 62/89. That was listed for admission on 9-4-1993. None was present on behalf of petitioner and under these circumstances, the review application was dismissed in default. Later on the petitioner filed an application for restoring the said review application to its original number on the ground that on 9-4-1994, the Advocates were on strike and as such the counsel for the petitioner could not attend the Court. The absence of the counsel for the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional. The petitioner should not suffer on account of absence of his counsel. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of resolution passed by the Bar Association, he could not attend the Court on 9-4-1993, when the case was called for admission. This was sufficient reason for his absence and under these circumstances, the order dated 9-41993, dismissing the review-application in default deserves to be recalled. In support of his arguments, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on AIR 1981 SC 1400 (Rafiq v. Munshi Lal), 1994 (1) WLC 383 (Raj) (Shyam Das v. Praveen Kumar) and another case of this Court passed in Civil Restoration Application No. 219/1993, Prahlad Kumar Pareek v. Rajasthan Co-operative Dairy Federation Ltd., Jaipur, decided on 4-3-1994.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments cited by the counsel for petitioner and reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 and 1994 (1) WLC 383 (Raj) (supra) are totally distinguishable and are not relevant to the facts of the present case. The judgment passed by this Court in Prahlad Kumar's case (supra) is though relevant but in this case the learned single Judge did not consider the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in Hari Ram Sharma v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, reported in (1992) 1 Rajasthan LR 523. In this case, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 411 of 1991 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2928/89 were dismissed in default on 16-9-1991, as the counsel engaged in the aforesaid cases did not appear in the Court on account of strike when the cases were called for hearing. Later on, restoration applications were submitted before this Court and this Court rejected the restoration applications. Para No. 5 of the judgment reads as below :-

(3.) Similar view was taken by this Court in Maula Bux (deceased) represented by his L.Rs. v. Sohan Lal, reported in (1991) 1 Rajasthan LR 616, in which it has been held as under :-