AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Kumar, CJ
[1] By order dated 11-09-2018, this Court dismissed CRP (C.R.P. Art. 227) No. 10 of 2018. The petitioner therein seeks review of the said order.
[2] Heard Mr. K.R. Pamei, learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not choose to enter appearance before this Court.
[3] The civil revision case was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22-11-2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Imphal West, in Judl. Misc. Case No. 123 of 2017 [Ref: Original (Dec.) Suit No. 13 of 2014]. The petitioner was the plaintiff in the said suit. The suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30-05-2016. Claiming ignorance of the same, the petitioner filed Judl. Misc. Case No. 123 of 2017 seeking condonation of the delay of 309 days in filing an application for restoration. However, the Trial Court found no grounds to condone the delay and dismissed the miscellaneous case. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the revision petition before this Court which also came to be dismissed on 11-09-2018.
[4] Perusal of the orders dated 22-11-2017 and 11-09-2018 reflects that the only ground put forth by the petitioner to explain the delay was that his counsel had failed to inform him of the dismissal of the suit. However, except for making this bald statement, the petitioner did not produce any proof of the alleged failure on the part of his counsel in keeping him informed.
[5] This Court considered the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee versus Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & others [(2013) 12 SCC 649] on the issue of condonation of delay and held that the case on hand warranted a strict approach being adopted in terms thereof. This Court accordingly held that there was no justification to interfere with the order of the Trial Court and dismissed the civil revision petition.
[6] Mr. K.R. Pamei, learned counsel, would contend that the petitioner should not be punished for the lapse on the part of his counsel. However, he fairly admits that no action whatsoever has been initiated by the petitioner against his counsel for the alleged lapses committed by him - no complaint was made against him to the Bar Council and he did not choose to sue him for his professional misconduct. Not even an affidavit is produced from the said counsel accepting the blame and confirming the stand of the petitioner. In effect, except for the ipse dixit statement of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to support his story that his counsel failed to inform him and that the delay ensued on that count. Consequently, no error is apparent on the face of the record and no material irregularity is made out, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Review Petition No. 13 of 2018 is accordingly dismissed.
No order as to costs.