SURJIT SINGH Vs. SHAKTI SINGH SAINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surjit Singh, the complainant is in appeal challenging order of District Forum, Hoshiarpur dated September 3, 1997 whereby his complaint was dismissed. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condoning delay in filing the same has been filed, which is also for disposal. It is alleged in the application that copy of the impugned order was not received by him and after coming to know of passing of the order, he approached the District Forum and obtained the same on September 19, 1997. The appeal was filed on 15.12.1997. It is asserted that being ill and on account of old age, the complainant could not file the appeal within the period of limitation. In support of his assertion, his own affidavit was filed supported by a Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Hansraj Singh Saini Banga, a registered medical practitioner. On perusal of the aforesaid certificate, it appears that the illness from which the complainant was suffering was not such that the complainant was completely immobilized. The illness is stated to be hypertension (simple ). That can hardly be a ground to hold that the complainant was unable to move about or required rest for months together. Full details of treatment taken from that doctor are not given to give a firm finding that during all these periods, the appellant was prevented by such illness from filing the appeal. The appellant is not a simple rustic villager that he did not know the consequences of the period of limitation prescribed by law. He is a Lamberdar in the village. On such like flimsy ground, delay of two months in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. Since the respondent has argued on merits, the appeal is being decided on merits as well.

(2.) Surjit Singh filed the present complaint against Shakti Singh Saini, Advocate alleging deficiency in rendering service in the matter of his engagement for filing three cases, one criminal and two civil suits. Only one criminal case was filed. When the complainant asked for return of the file, the same was refused by the opposite party on the ground that the entire fee had not been paid. According to the complainant, the entire fee of Rs.8,000/- for prosecuting the three cases referred to above was paid. Rs.3,000/- ere paid initially at the time of engagement and Rs.5,000/- subsequently after the said amount was withdrawn frorn his Bank Account. The opposite party while contesting the complaint submitted that version denying the allegations of the complainant. According to him only a sum of Rs.4,000/- in instalment was paid to him. There remained balance of Rs.4,000/- to be paid by the complainant. All the three cases in which he was engaged were filed in the Courts. Detailed reference was made in the reply. Since the complainant failed to pay the balance amount of the fee, being frustrated he filed the present complaint. Both the parties produced their evidence on their own affidavits. The complainant also produced copies of his complaint made to the President of the Bar Association for taking action against the opposite party. On an application moved before the District Forum, the statement of Kuldip Singh, Advocate, the then President of the Bar Association was recorded who admitted that such a complaint was moved before him, which was returned. The District Forum while dismissing the complaint did not accept the version put forth by the complainant.

(3.) The complainant-appellant has not come present to argue the appeal. Whereas the respondent has appeared in person, who has been heard. As per facts in brief stated above, there was no dispute that Surjit Singh intended to file three cases in the Courts, one criminal and two civil cases against one Mohinder Singh, who is alleged to have sold some land to the complainant alleging that the same was without encumbrances but factually it was found that it stood mortgaged. In the Grounds of Appeal, it is stated that civil suits were not filed by the respondent for which he was engaged. This contention is devoid of merit. In the written statement filed by the opposite party supported by his affidavit, it was stated that two suits were also filed. Surjit Singh in his affidavit filed before the District Forum did not say anything about such suits but simply asserted that interim injunction was not granted by the Court. The grant of relief by the Court is not dependent upon the services to be rendered by the Advocate to any particular party. The assertion made by the complainant in the present case is that the opposite party being Ex. Assistant Advocate General had represented that he would procure interim injunction and thus having failed to get, was deficient in rendering service. This argument as taken up in the Grounds of Appeal or otherwise arising from the case is of no consequence. The duty cast upon an Advocate representing the party is only to represent the party and put forth the facts of the case. If relief is not granted as expected by the party, it will not amount to deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Advocate representing the party.