JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure for restoration of a petition for special leave u/s 378, Code of Criminal Procedure by the complainant. 2. Since there was no appearance on 20-2-1989 when the matter was called for hearing on the question of grant of special leave, the petition for special leave was dismissed for default. This application has been filed to restore the petition by recalling the order alleging that Mr. S.D. Das, Advocate who was to make submission understood that High Court Bar Association had decided and resolved to pray to the Court for declaring the Court as closed due to lunar eclipse and was told that Courts had risen for the day and under that erroneous impression left the Court premises. As the dismissal was on account of such erroneous impression of the Advocate engaged, prayer has been made to restore the same. 3. Draft holidays for the year 1989 were approved by the Court after getting the views of the Bar Association. At that time no objection was made to the working day of the Court specially with regard to 20-2-1989. Under the President?s order it is stipulated that this Court shall have 210 working days. In case objection would have been raised before the working days were fixed, possibly another working day could have been found. It should have been appreciated by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Court has no jurisdiction to reduce the working days to loss than 210 days. Besides, on 20-2-1989 many lawyers appeared in the Court and made their submissions. There was no justification for Mr. Das to carry an impression to leave the Court premises specially when he had already come to make his submissions in the case. No resolution was also intimated to the Court before 10.30 a. m. when Courts began functioning. I am not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for absence of Mr. Das. 4. Petitioner belongs to district of Ganjam, a far away place from Cuttack, the seat of the High Court. He entrusted the brief to his Advocate with confidence that the case would be properly presented by his lawyer. I am not satisfied that there was sufficient cause for absence of Mr. Das. 4. Petitioner belongs to district of Ganjam, a far away place from Cuttack, the seat of the High Court. He entrusted the brief to his Advocate with confidence that the case would be properly presented by his lawyer. If there would have been any rule made under the Advocates Act or even by the Bar Association that the lawyers can abstain from appearing from Court by resolution, possibly he would have engaged a peon who is not bound by such rules under the Advocates Act or of the Bar Association. He is not responsible for the dismissal for default in any manner in entrusting the brief to Mr. Das. In such circumstance, Supreme Court in the decision reported in Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another, ) it was observed: The disturbing features of the case is that under 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 the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate, in the proceedings can be rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire 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. Mr. A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High. Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. May be We do not know, he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. It is no part of his job. Mr. A.K. Sanghi stated that a practice has grown up in the High. Court of Allahabad amongst the lawyers that they remain absent when they do not like a particular Bench. May be We do not know, he is better informed in this matter. Ignorance in this behalf is our bliss. Even if we do not put our seal of imprimatur on the alleged practice by dismissing this matter which may discourage such a tendency would it not bring justice delivery system into disrepute. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power and expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr. A.K. Sanghi, invited us to do the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented, The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative.... I view of this high authority, I am inclined to hold that the party should not suffer. 5. In the result, application for special leave u/s 378, Code of Criminal Procedure is restored by recalling the order dated 20-2-1989. Ordered accordingly. Final Result : Allowed