JUDGMENT 1. - While suspending the sentence some of us at both the places, namely, Jaipur and Jodhpur, pass an order that the accused shall appear in the Court whenever called noon to do so. Some of us pass different type of orders and direct the accused to appear on a particular date before the Court. The practice prevailing in the court is that the case is not listed in any court or before the Registrar or the Dy. Registrar and in the Cause List it is also not shown as listed. Once the case is not listed the party may take a stand that he is not expected to appear as he is not aware where he should appear. 2. There is one difficulty also and a very genuine difficulty of the consumers litigants that the accused appellant or the petitioner comes before the Pesi Clerk, thereafter goes away. Is it a presence before the Court. We will have also to judge the hardship of the consumer litigant that he is compelled to come foe showing his face to the Clerk concerned and for not doing anything. Even the Court does not take the cognizance of the appearance by not showing the case is the Cause List. I am of the view that such practice should be stopped. I am adopting the practice that the appellant or the petitioner should appear in the court only when he is called upon to do so and no date should be fixed. On the administrative side it is for the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider about the preparation of the Cause List. If the accused is bound to appear before the Court then the case should also be shown in the Cause List. It is in the interest of our institution also that there should be one practice and we should also consider the pros and cons of the question of appearance before the Court including the expenses which the consumer litigant has to suffer. 3. As far as this case is concerned it was not shown in the Cause List on 19th February 1988 and it cannot be said to be a case of absence of the accused. Only those persons are expected to appear in the court whose cases are shown in the Cause List. 3. As far as this case is concerned it was not shown in the Cause List on 19th February 1988 and it cannot be said to be a case of absence of the accused. Only those persons are expected to appear in the court whose cases are shown in the Cause List. So, 1 do not find that the accused has committed any mistake in not getting his presence recorded. There is a practice, after first appearance, the accused never appears before the Court and even at the time of hearing. In such circumstances, appearance on the first day is totally irrelevant for the purpose of justice. The personal attendance of the accused is dispensed with till further orders. Put up before the Hon. Chief Justice for consideration on the administrative side.Order accordingly. *******