JUDGMENT C. M. P. No. 91 of 1996 : A. L Vaidya, J.—The present petition has been preferred under Order 41, Rule 19 read with section 151, C. P. C. and also under section 5 of the Limitation Act for restoration and re-admission of the appeal and application (C. M. P. No. 256/95) dismissed in default on 31st May, 1995. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that R. S A No 272/92 after admission had been fixed for hearing for 29th March, 1995 alongwith C. M. P. No 374/92. On the aforesaid date neither the appellant nor the learned Counsel appeared when the case was called and accordingly the appeal as well as C. M. P. were ordered to be dismissed in default. 3. Thereafter, on 18th April, 1995 application registered as C. M. P. No. 256 of 1995 was preferred for restoration of the appeal dismissed in default on 29th March, 1995. The grounds for restoration of the appeal, as pleaded in the application, had been that the respondents had not filed any reply to the application for stay and the counsel for the applicant-appellant had gone to Mandi on 25th March, 1995 for some domestic affairs though he contacted one of his colleagues telephonically to appear on his behalf in the case but unfortunately he could also not appear in the case on the date fixed by the Court. It had also been pleaded in the application that the counsel was under the impression that in view of non-filing of the reply to the stay application by the respondents, the case was to be adjourned by the Court on the request of the respondents, but the appeal itself was dismissed in default though the application for stay was listed for orders. 4. The aforesaid C. M. P. No. 256/95 was taken up on 31st May, 1995 on which date again neither the applicant nor his learned Counsel was present and accordingly the petition was also dismissed in default, 5. Present C M P No. 91 of 1996 has been preferred for restoration and re-admission of the appeal and C. M. P. No. 256 of 1995 dismissed in default on 31st May, 1995. Present C M P No. 91 of 1996 has been preferred for restoration and re-admission of the appeal and C. M. P. No. 256 of 1995 dismissed in default on 31st May, 1995. The grounds for restoration as pleaded has been that the applicant-appellant filed an application (C MP, No, 256 of 1995) for restoration of the appeal which was listed before the Court on 31st May, 1995 on which date unfortunately the counsel was at Mandi in connection with some M. A. C. T. case in which awarded amount was to be disbursed to the parties through counsel in terms of the orders passed in F. A. O. 6. The application has been contested on behalf of the respondents though reply to the application has not been filed, 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 8. It has been very forcefully contended on behalf of the appellant-applicant that the negligence of the lawyer cannot be made a base for penalising the client. There is absolutely no dispute to this proposition that a client should not be penalised for the lapses committed by his counsel, but that aspect of the matter has to be taken note of in the surrounding circumstances of a particular case. In case the aforesaid proposition is taken for granted, there wont be any end of such dismissal in default where a lawyer has not been acting in a bonafide manner. In that event for every absence of the lawyer where the case is dismissed in default, it has to be restored Atleast, there has to be some point where this concession cannot be favourably considered in favour of a lawyer. Here, is a case of that type, 9. As referred above, the appeal was dismissed in default in March 1995 and the lawyer has given reasons for his absence without intimating his client about the same. Second time, the petition has been dismissed in default and he grounds given by the lawyer was that he had to appear before the M A, C T Mandi to receive some compensation on behalf of his client on the basis of the order of this Court. Second time, the petition has been dismissed in default and he grounds given by the lawyer was that he had to appear before the M A, C T Mandi to receive some compensation on behalf of his client on the basis of the order of this Court. There is nothing on record to suggest even remotely that this court has directed the client to receive the compensation for that particular day when the case was fixed in this court also. Lawyer for the best reasons known to him has selected not to appear before this court without informing his client and preferred to appear before the M. A. C. T. Mandi, where the compensation was to be received Any way, this Court is not concerned in that regard, but the fact remains that lawyer in this case has not acted in a proper manner in defending the case of his client No doubt client is being punished for the lapses committed by his lawyer and for that purpose client can have any recourse as is available to him under the provisions of law, 10. Additionally, it may be pointed out that the present application has been preferred beyond the period of limitation and is barred by 167 days, For condoning the delay learned Counsel for the applicants plea as taken in the petition has been that on his return to Shim la from Mandi, counsel enquired from the Registry of this Court about the listing of the application in the present appeal. Registry informed the counsel on 5th December, 1995 that the said application has also been dismissed in default on 31st May, 1995. 1 think this plea at the very face of it is to be totally ignored. Lawyer knew that the case had been fixed for 31st May, 1995 and he has not pleaded on which date he came back to Shimla He has simply stated that he was informed about this in December 1995 by the Registry. There is nothing in the petition as to why the lawyer could not get this information after 31st May, 1995 when immediately thereafter he reached Shimla. In this view of the matter, delay cannot be condoned. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid circumstances, this petition cannot be favourably considered and is dismissed accordingly. Petition dismissed.