Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 53 (PAT)

Sachidanand Singh v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-11

R.S.GARG

body2002
Judgment R.S.Garg, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. After hearing the parties on I.A. No. 5766 of 2001, it appears from the record that M.J.C. No. 489/90 was dismissed in default, therefore, the petitioner submitted the present petition for its restoration. During the pendency of this restoration petition the respondent No. 5, Hari Narayan Srivastava who, in fact, arrayed as respondent as Administrative Officer, Kosi Area Development Agency, Saharsa, died. This Court by order dated 15-10-2001 directed that steps for substitution of legal heirs of deceased be taken. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Sri Lalan Kumar Verma who was representing the petitioner had expired, therefore, neither information could be sent to the petitioner nor proper steps could be taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after death of his father who was representing the petitioner he wrote certain letters to the petitioner and after contacting him prepared the petition and has filed the substitution petition. 4. In view of the facts narrated above, it would clearly appear that respondent No. 5, in fact, was joined in the petition in his official capacity, though his name is also mentioned in the original petition. No personal grievance has been made against the said officer, therefore, substitution is not required. Be that as it may, as the respondents are already present and Kosi Command Area Development Agency, Saharsa is already represented. it is to be held that non-substitution of the legal representatives of Hari Narain Srivastava (Administrator is neither going to cause prejudice to the respondents nor will lead to injustice. 5. The parties are heard on the merits of the matter. The petitioner submits that he did not deliberately avoid the appearance in the Court. According to him, he had already engaged Sri Lalan Kumar Verma, Advocate of this Court, who represented him but as Sri Verma was busy in the arrangements of the marriage of his daughter at Delhi. Sri Verma could not keep himself present when the case was taken up for hearing. In support of his contention, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 6. I have gone through the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The respondents simply say that the restoration petition has been filed on general ground of marriage. I fail to understand the merit of this phraseology used by the officers of the respondents. In support of his contention, an affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 6. I have gone through the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. The respondents simply say that the restoration petition has been filed on general ground of marriage. I fail to understand the merit of this phraseology used by the officers of the respondents. Be somebody a Counsel or a party apart from attending the Courts, they have personal relations to attend and personal life to live. If a Counsel appearing for one party is entitled to be adjusted on personal ground then, a party, in the opinion of this Court, would be entitled for adjustment from this Court. After all this Court is meant for dispensing justice and not to dispense with justice. The doors of the Court cannot be closed against those who for the reasons beyond their control are unable to appear in the Courts. The provisions as contained in Order IX, Rule 9 and Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in the opinion of the Supreme Court have to be construed or interpreted liberally and in manner to advance cause of justice and not to cause injustice. When a party relied upon his Counsel then, he is entitled to believe that after engaging his Counsel the burden is shifted on his Counsel, the interest would be looked after and whenever the Counsel calls him the party would appear in the Court. If for reason personal to the Counsel or reason beyond control of the Counsel, he is unable to appear in the Court then it is not expected of the Court to be harsh or become extra technical. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for restoration of the petition which was dismissed for want of prosecution. 8. The petition is allowed. The earlier M.J.C. No. 489/90 is restored to its original number.