M/s. Tikam Chand and Brothers, Agra vs Regional Food Controller, Agra and another

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. Sri N.C. Upadhyay was initially counsel for the petitioner in this case. He died sometime in Dec., 1985. The petitioner alleges that he was unaware of the death of Sri N. C. Upadhyay. In Oct., 1990 he heard rumours about the dismissal of the petition. He immediately came to Allahabad and went to the office of the late Sri Upadhyay where he learnt of Sri Upadhyay''s death. He then instructed Sri V. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate to find out the position of the case whereupon Sri Chaturvedi inspected the record and found that the petition had been dismissed in default by an order of this Court dated 13-8-1986.

The position that emerges is that on the date of dismissal of the petition no one represented the petitioner. Somehow, however, the name of Sri S. S. Chauhan, learned counsel who was working in the chambers of late Sri N. C. Upadhyay as his junior colleague appeared in the cause list even though Sri Chauhan had neither filed his Vakatatnama nor appearance slip in the case. Sri Chauhan, whom we sent for, states before us today that he had not informed the Bench Secretary that though his name appeared in the cause list, he had no instructions in the case.

Counsel being officers of the Court, the Court legitimately expects that the learned counsel whose names wrongly appear in the cause list for a party even though they have no instructions from them should inform the Court through the Bench Secretary, preferably in writing, that they have no instructions in the matter so that the Court may proceed on that basis and pass appropriate orders in the case. The Court is entitled to presume that counsel whose name appears in the cause list does in fact have instructions from the party on whose behalf his name appears.

Be that as it may, it seems to us that the petitioner not being aware of the death of Sri N. C. Upadhyay nor even of the dismissal of the petition was not to blame for not having engaged another counsel to represent him in this Court. There was sufficient cause for non-appearance of anyone on behalf of the petitioner. The application is allowed. The order dated 13-8-1986 in recalled. The petition'' is restored to its original number. The name of Mr. S. S. Chauhan may not be shown in the cause list instead Sri V. K. Chaturvedi may be shown as counsel for the petitioner in the cause list. The petition may not be treated as tied up to this Bench.

Petition allowed.