Judgment : R.N. Pyne. J: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated September 13, 1982 of C.K. Banerji, J. allowing the application made by the respondent No. 1, Himangshu Kumar Roy for dismissal of Suit No. 818 of 1978 (Tusnial Trading Company v. Himanshu Kumar Roy & others) filed by the appellant for a decree for Rs 1,59,54374 paise and other reliefs. 2. On November 16, 1978 the appellant as the plaintiff filed the said Suit No. 818 of 1978 against the respondents (who were the defendants in the court of the first instance) for recovery of Rs. 1,59,543.64 paise and other reliefs. It appears that after filing of the said suit the appellant made an application for appointment of a Receiver and by an interim order dated November 16, 1978 and final order dated December 5, 1978 Receiver was appointed in the above suit It is stated that Receiver, A K. Dhandhania, is now holding approximately Rs. 57,000/- 3. After filing of the suit no steps were taken by the Advocates-on-record M/s. Khaitan & Co. on behalf of the appellants (who was the plaintiff in the said suit) for taking out writ of summons and lodging the same with the Sheriff for service upon the defendants, as required by Rules 6 and 7 of the Chapter VIII of the Original Side Rules of this Court. In the above circumstances the respondent No. 1 on or about 14th June, 1982 made an application, inter alia, for dismissal of the said suit for non-prosecution. The grounds taken by the respondent no. 1 in his application was that there was gross delay and laches on the part of the plaintiff and although three and half years have passed since the date of the filing of the suit the plaintiff failed to take any steps for taking out the writ of summons and lodging the same with the Sheriff for service upon the defendants as required by the aforesaid Rules Hence, according to the respondent No. 1, for gross delay and laches on the part of the appellant and/or its said Advocates-on-Record as also for non, prosecution of the suit the same should be dismissed. 4. In the said application an affidavit affirmed on 22nd July, 1982 by Meghraj Tusnial, a partner of the appellant, was used in opposition to the said application. 4. In the said application an affidavit affirmed on 22nd July, 1982 by Meghraj Tusnial, a partner of the appellant, was used in opposition to the said application. In the said affidavit the reason for not taking out the writ of summons and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department for service upon the defendants has been stated. In paragraph 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated that in accordance with Rules 6 and 7 of Chapter VIII of the Original Side Rules the plaintiff and/or its Advocates On-Record was required to lodge the writ of summons with the Sheriff within 14 days from the date of filing of the suit for service thereof upon the defendants. It is stated that one Balailal Bose, a Clerk in the employment of appellant's Advocates-on-Record M/s. Khaitan & Company was and is deputed with the said work of issue of writ of summons from the Department of the court and lodgement thereof with the Sheriff of Calcutta for service. Duo to inadvertance and/or oversight the said clerk failed to get writ of summons issued and lodge the same with the Sheriff for service. According to the appellant, that matter totally escaped the attention of the said Balailal Bose with the lapse of time. It was further stated that since lodging of the writ of summons service with the Sheriff is a routine matter the Advocates of M/s Khaitan & Company in charge of the suit reasonably believed that the said clerk had taken all steps for service of the writ of summons up-:m the defendants. It is further stated that the Advocate of M/s. Khaitan & Company, the Advocates-on-Record of the appellant in charge of the said suit from service of the notice of motion of the application made by the respondent No. 1 came to know for the first time that the writ of a summons was not served on the defendants. It appears that after the said application of the respondent the appellant on or about 11th July, 1982 made an application for extension of time of the returnable date of the writ of summons and for liberty to be given to the appellant's Advocates on-Record to lodge the writ of summons with the Sheriff's Department with in 14 days from the date of the order to be made in the said application. 5. 5. The application of the respondent No.1 for dismissal of the suit was allowed by C.K Banerji, J. by his judgement and order dated 13th September, 1982. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that there was gross negligence and delay on the part of the appellant and or its Advocate on-Record and there was no explanation at all the non-issuance and non-service of the writ of summons in the suit which was filed admittedly on 16th November, 1978 and in which a Receiver was appointed in an application made by the appellant. In that view of the matter the learned trial Judge allowed the said application made by the respondent No. 1. As stated hereinbefore the instant appeal is against the said judgment and order dated 13th September, 1982. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that there are no default on the part of the appellant but such default is on the part of the Advocate-on-Record of the appellant. It has been submitted that since the issuance of the writ of summons aud lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department is a routine matter he took it that the same was done by the clerk of the Advocates-on-Record of the appellant in charge of the matter and did what was necessary in this matter According to 1earned Counsel, for the negligence or default on the part of the appellant's Advocates-on Record and/or its employee the appellant should not suffer or be penalised. In support of his submissions he relied on the cases of M/s Jaypur Minerals Development Syndicate, Jaypur v. The Commissioner of I.T., AIR 1977 SC 1348 ; Rafiq & anr. v. Munshilal & anr., AIR 1977 SC 1400 and Smt. Lachitewari & ors. v. Director of Land Records & ors., AIR 1984 SC 41 . 7. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the cases cited on behalf of the appellant have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. In those cases proper steps were taken by the party with regard to the hearing of the case by engaging lawyer and putting them in funds but there was default on the part of the lawyer for not appearing in the case when taken up for hearing. In those circumstances the Supreme Court was of the view that for lawyer's default the lay party should not suffer. In those circumstances the Supreme Court was of the view that for lawyer's default the lay party should not suffer. It was further submitted that Balailal Bose, an employee of the plaintiff's Advocates-on-Record, M/s. Khaitan & Company who was responsible for not getting the writ of summons issued and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department has oat used any affidavit explaining the fact as to why no steps were taken for issuance of the writ of summons and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department for service upon the defendants. Further, according to Counsel, after filing of the suit and obtaining an order for appointment of Receiver the plaintiff did not care to know what had happaned to its suit. 8. In the instant case it appears that after filing of the suit on 15th November, 1978 although an application for appointment of the Receiver was made and a Receiver was appointed yet no step was taken for issuance of the writ of summons and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department for service upon the defendants. The ground for such default, according to the appellant, is that one Balailal Bose, a clerk who was deputed with the above work, due to inadvertence, could not do the same and due to lapse of time the matter escaped his notice. It, therefore, appears that the appellant's case is that he was not at fault but default is on the part of the clerk of its Advocates-on-Record. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration in the instant case is whether for such default as stated above on the part of the Advocates-on-Record of the appellant, the appellant should suffer. 9. There is no doubt that in the instant case there was negligence and default on the part of Advocate, on Record of the appellant. The question is whether for such negligence or default of its Advocates-on-Record the appellant should be made to suffer. It should also be considered whether in the facts and circumstances of this case there was any gross negligence on the part of the appellant for which its suit should be dismissed. 10. In the case of Smt. Lachi Tewari & ors. It should also be considered whether in the facts and circumstances of this case there was any gross negligence on the part of the appellant for which its suit should be dismissed. 10. In the case of Smt. Lachi Tewari & ors. v. Director of Land Records & ors., AIR 1984 SC 41 the facts were that one Dwarkanath Tewari had obtained a Rule nisi in Civil Rule No 217 of 1976 in the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghulaya, Manipur and Tripura. When the Rule nisi came up for hearing on April 21, 1983 which appeared to be the first day of hearing after the Rule was issued, the learned Judges of the High Court dismissed the application all no advocate on behalf of the petitioner appeared to press the same. Soon thereafter within a span of 10 days an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner pointing out to the Court the circumstances in which neither the petitioner nor his three learned Counsel wert present and sought the indulgence of the Court to recall the order dated April 21, 1983 on the ground that April 21, 1983 happened to be the day on which the Court reopened after "Bihu" holidays and the learned senior Counsel who had gone to Calcutta during the vacation had not been able to return on account of the irregularity of the air services. It was further stated that two other learned Counsel were busy in other courts when the matter was called on for hearing and request was made to pass over the matter. As these grounds did not find favour of the learned Judge of the High Court, the application for recalling the order was rejected. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. It was observed by the Supreme Court that the petitioner obtained a Rule ntsi in 1976 and waited for seven years for its being heard. Suddenly the High Court fixed up the matter for hearing on April 21, 1983. The petitioner had taken extra caution to engage three learned Counsel. According to the Supreme Court, what more could be expected of the petitioner. Further what more steps should have been taken in the matter to avoid being thrown out unheard The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court in its judgment relied on the case of Rafiq & anr. According to the Supreme Court, what more could be expected of the petitioner. Further what more steps should have been taken in the matter to avoid being thrown out unheard The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court in its judgment relied on the case of Rafiq & anr. v. Munshi Lal, AIR 1981 SC 1400 and extracted in its judgment the following observation made by the Court in that case. "The disturbing feature of the case is that in our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their Advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his Advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things, The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the Court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of bearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he is neither to go to the High Court to enquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watch-dog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed, It is no part of his job". 11. In the case of Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Any, AIR 1983 SC 1400 the facts were that where an appeal filed by the appellant was disposed of in absence of his counsel so also his application for recall of the order of dismissial was rejected by the High Court, the Supreme Court in appeal set aside both the orders of the dismissal on ground that a party who as per the present adversary legal system has selected his Advocate, briefed him and paid his fee can remain supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest and such an innocent party who has done everything in his power and expected of him, should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his counsel. 12. 12. In the of M/s. Jaypur Minerals Development Syndicate, Jaypur v. The Commr. of I.T. New Delhi it was observed that in a reference under S. 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax, 1922 and High Court declined to answer the reference for absence of the party and non-filing of a paper book. An application was made for re-hearing of the case. The High Court held that where a party at whose instance a reference under S. 66(1) of the Act had been made was asked by notice of the High Court to file the paper books within three months but the notice was misplaced by the party's clerk with the result the neither the paper book was filed nor a party appeared at the hearing of the reference and the High Court declined to answer the reference on that ground. It was held that the High Court was not functus officio in entertaining the application for rehearing the reference and disposing it on merits. Since there was sufficient cause for non-appearance and there was no lack of due diligence on the part of the applicant High Court was directed to rehear the reference on merits. 13. In the light of principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above in the facts and circumstances of the instant case propriety of the order of the trial Court dismissing the appellant's suit is to be considered. 14. The appellant's suit is for recovery of a large sum namely. Rs. 1,59,543 64 paise. In the matter of filing of the suit the appellant duly instructed its Advocates-on-Record and necessarily put them in fund and gave necessary instructions After the matter was handed over to the lawyer it was the duty of the lawyer, i.e., Advocates-on-Record of the appellant to take all necessary steps for the purpose of filing of the suit and due prosecution thereof. In the instant case it appears that the appellant's Advocates-on-Record failed to toke appropriate steps for getting writ of summons issued from the Court's Department and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department as required under Chapter VIII Rules 6 and 7 of the Original Side Rules for service upon the defendants. The matter is purely procedural and therefore no step in the matter was required to be taken by the appellant who is a lay party. The matter is purely procedural and therefore no step in the matter was required to be taken by the appellant who is a lay party. After giving necessary instruction to its Advocates-on-Record the appellant could remain supremely confident that all necessary steps required to be taken by its Advocates-on-Record in the matter would be taken Therefore, it was solely the duty of the appellant's Advocates-on-Record to take all necessary steps in the matter. They failed to carry out their duties towards their client properly. It was the duty of the Advocates-on-Record to see that proper steps were being taken in the matter of prosecution of the suit. Taking of steps for getting the writ of summons issued and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department is a procedural and routine matter and for this no further instruction was necessary from the client. It is the duty of the appellant's Advocates-on-Record to advise the appellant what necessary steps are to be taken in the matter. It is no part of the client's duty in the absence of special facts and circumstances to find out from his Advocates-on-Record as to whether proper stops in tile matter, particularly when it is purely procedural and of routine nature had been taken or not. A lay party after handing over the matter to his lawyer with necessary instruction may remain satisfied that all necessary steps in the matter would be taken by his lawyer. In the instant case the appellant acted on the advice of Advocates-on-Record and being a lay party it is not expected of it to be conversant with the Court's procedure. It was for its lawyer to take necessary steps in the matter and to give it correct advice. Due to laches and/or negligence and/or default on the part of the Advocates-on-Record of the appellant no steps for taking out writ of summons and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department was taken. The clerk of the Advocates-on-Record, Balai Lal Bose, whose duty was to take appropriate steps in the matter faded to carry out his duty properly. There was negligence and default on his part. In the affidavit-in-opposition the explanation given is that due to inadvertence and/or oven-sight of the said clerk the writ of summons was not issued or lodged with the Sheriff's Department. Further, the matter totally escaped his attention with the lapse of time. There was negligence and default on his part. In the affidavit-in-opposition the explanation given is that due to inadvertence and/or oven-sight of the said clerk the writ of summons was not issued or lodged with the Sheriff's Department. Further, the matter totally escaped his attention with the lapse of time. It is also stated that Advocates-on Charge of M/s Khaitan & Co. Advocates-on-Record of the appellant reasonably believed that the said clerk had taken all steps for service of the writ of summons upon the defendants. We are not at all approving the conduct of M/s Khaitan & Co., the Advocates-on-Record of the appellant or the Advocate of the said film in charge of the matter or the said clerk. But the question is whether the appellant who is a lay party and is not supposed to know the procedure of the Court should suffer for such negligence or default. The only consideration which is predominant in our mind is whether for the negligence and default on the part of the appellant's Advocates-on-Record the appellant should suffer. It has been suggested that the appellant did not enquire from its Advocates on-Record what was happening to its suit. An extra-vigilant client may enquire from time to time from his lawyer what is the state of his suit. But an ordinary lay client is not expected to enquire from time to time from its laywer in the absence of any special reason or circumstances as to whether appropriate and proper steps are being taken in the matter. After handing over the matter with necessary instructions to the lawyer and putting him in funds it is not required of the lay client in the absence of any special circumstances to enquire from time to time as to whether the lawyer is taking all necessary steps in the matter. A lay client is not expected to act as watch-dog of the advocate that latter is taking all necessary steps in the matter, particularly when it is procedural in nature. In the instant case the default in question is with regard to procedural matter. After a legal proceeding is instituted it is not, in the absence of any special reason, generally required of a party to enquire whether proper steps, particularly procedural in nature, are being to taken in the matte. In the instant case the default in question is with regard to procedural matter. After a legal proceeding is instituted it is not, in the absence of any special reason, generally required of a party to enquire whether proper steps, particularly procedural in nature, are being to taken in the matte. We are expressing our thorough disapproval and dissatisfaction the way the instant case has been conducted by the Advocates-on-record of the appellant or the Advocate of the said firm in charge of the matter or the clerk. In our view, in the absence of any special reason only because the appellant did not enquire from time to time from its Advocates-on-Record as to what was being done in its suit that would amount to sufficient negligence or default of a party who has filed a suit for recovery of a substantial amount it should be penalised. We are not however, expressing any view regarding the merit of the suit. At the hearing of the suit it would be decided whether the appellant's claim has any merit or not. The prime consideration in our mind at this stage is whether a lay client who is not expected to know the procedure to be complied with in any case, and has left the matter in the hands of his lawyer with necessary instruction should suffer for the negligence or default of his lawyer in the matter which is purely of procedural in nature. 15. It has been submitted that Balai Lal Bose, a clerk of the appellant's Advocates-on-Record whose duty was to take steps for getting the writ of summons issued and lodging the same with the Sheriff's Department for service upon the defendants has not filed any affidavit. Surely the said Balai Lal Bose and the Advocates-in-Charge of the suit should have filed affidavits in the instant case. In the matter of filing the affidavit the decision is taken by the Advocates-on Record of the party. It is for them to advise the lay client as to whose affidavit should be filed in the matter. Here we also find some negligence on the part of the Advocates-on-Record of the appellant. However, as stated earlier and as lain down in the cases mentioned above of the Supreme Court the innocent party should not be made to suffer for the negligence, laches and/or misdemeanour of his lawyer. Here we also find some negligence on the part of the Advocates-on-Record of the appellant. However, as stated earlier and as lain down in the cases mentioned above of the Supreme Court the innocent party should not be made to suffer for the negligence, laches and/or misdemeanour of his lawyer. To repeat after handing over the matter with necessary instructions to his lawyer and putting him in funds there is no obligation of a party in the absence of special circumstances to enquire from his lawyer as to whether proper steps are being taken in the matter. After discharging his obligation mentioned above a party in the absence of any special circumstances may rest assured that all necessary steps would be taken by his lawyer in the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and also for the reasons that rather heavy claim has been made by the appellant In the suit, the same should not be dismissed solely on the ground of the negligence, laches and/or default on the part of Advocates-an-Record of the appellant. 16. In the aforesaid view of the matter we allow the appeal. The appeal is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case the appellant will pay to the respondent no.1 the cost of the appeal as also the cost of the application made in the trial court. 17. As regard, the money lying with the Receiver, he will invest the same– If not already invested in a fixed deposit of 181 days, with any nationalised Bank. The Receiver will go on renewing the fixed deposit for a similar period until further orders of this Court. Excepting this part, the other part of the order is stayed for 3 weeks from today. 18. Miss S. Ramchand, appearing for the respondent, orally prays for leave to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree passed in the instant appeal. As in our view no substantial question of law of general importance is involved in the instant case, the prayer is rejected. 19. The Receivar, the department and all parties to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of the judgment. Jyotirmoyee Nag J. :- I agree. Appeal allowed.