DIRECTOR RESEARCH Vs. COMPUAGE ELECTRONICS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/complainant has moved this application for restoration of his complaint to file which has come to be rejected for want of prosecution by the order passed by this Commission on 21st July, 1998. No reply to this application has come to be filed by or on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) It appears that neither the applicant/ complainant nor its Advocate remained present on 21st July, 1998. Thereupon the complaint came to be rejected for want of prosecution. The ground given for absence on the part of the applicant/complainant and its Advocate is that, in the cause of list for 21st July, 1998, the name of the applicant/ complainant was not mentioned, and it was thought that the matter was not placed in the cause list on that day. It may be noted that, though this matter was placed on that day in the cause list without mentioning the name of the applicant/complainant, the case number was specifically mentioned with the title of the respondent in the cause list for that day. However, since the name of the applicant/ complainant was not mentioned, technically the applicant/ complainant and its Advocate can be said to be justified in not remaining present when the matter was taken up for hearing on that day.

(3.) Even otherwise, it is a settled principle of law that no litigant should be let down on account of default, inaction, omission or somewhat negligence on the part of his Advocate in view of the binding ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and Anr. V/s. Munshilal and Anr., 1981 AIR(SC) 1400.