Sayian Singh vs Bishan Singh

R.L. Anand, J.—Nobody has given the appearance on behalf of the respondent.

This is a second appeal and has been directed against the order dated 29.7.1987 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, which dismissed the application of the appellant for restoration of his appeal which was dismissed in default.

The brief facts of the case are that civil appeal titled Sayian Singh v. Bishan Singh was pending before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ferozepur and was fixed for hearing on 6.5.1987. Unfortunately, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the appellate court as a result of that the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for restoration of the appeal was moved within time but it was dismissed for the reasons given in para No. 3 of the order, which reads as under:

"3. The application, as already mentioned above, is not supported by any affidavit, either of the applicant or his counsel. There is no explanation why the counsel could not appear. However, perusal of the order dated 6.5.1987 vide which the appeal was dismissed by any learned predecessor shows that Mr. T.S. Gill who was counsel for the appellant has engaged another counsel Shri T.R. Bhandari who was not present that day. This is not the allegation of the applicant that Shri T.S. Gill made a wrong statement before the court. I, therefore, find no sufficient and just ground for restoration of the appeal. The application is accordingly dismissed."

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.1987, the present appeal.

I have heard Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and with his assistance, I have gone through the records of this case. 6, The application has been dismissed on the ground that it is not supported by an affidavit. The rule of procedure should not be interpreted in such a strict manner that it may even scuttle the bona fide rights of a litigant. The more stress of the law courts should be for dispensing of justice. The reading of the impugned order would show that the learned Additional District Judge has put more blame upon the client rather than the lawyer. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the client has engaged a lawyer with the hope that he will appear on the desired dates and shall put forth his case in right earnest. In the view of this court the order cannot be sustained. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 6.5.1987 and 19.7.1987 are hereby set aside and direction are given to the District Judge, Ferozepur to take the original appeal on its own file and after giving notice to the parties dispose of the same within six months from the receipt of the copy of this order. The counsel for the appellant is directed to appear before the learned District Judge, Ferozepur on 1.10.1999.

The appeal stands allowed.