Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 438 (ALL)

NARENDRA KUMAR v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AGRA

2007-02-23

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
RAKESH TIWARI, J. Heard Sri Prakash Gupta for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Goel for the respondents. 2. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 25-8-2006 as under : "the case has been taken up in the revised list. No one has appeared to press this petition. This is an old case. The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. " 3. Sri Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that he had written several letters to his client but he has not responded, as such he has not appeared before the Court. 4. The cause of concern of the Court is that a tendency of the Counsel in not appearing before the Court without any reasonable cause and information is fast developing. If a Counsel is unable to appear for any reason whatsoever or that he is engaged in another Court, he may give; engagement slip to the reader of the Court as provided in High Court Rules and for any other just reason a mention may be made to the Court when the case is taken up. Non-appearance without any justifiable reason and non- information to the Court is a sheer deliberate discourtesy to the Court. This comes within the ambit of discourtesy. 5. A Counsel who is engaged in a case is duty bound to appear in the case for conducting the case. However, for seeking adjournment he should have this much courtesy to inform the Court for not being able to prosecute the same due to any difficulty which he may be facing including a situation where in spite of information his client has not responded or given any instructions. 6. Once a Counsel chooses not to appeal before the Court, the Court can dismiss the writ petition in the revised list in the absence of the Counsel on the ground of non-prosecution. The present trend of not appearing before the Court without proper information is very discourteous and is a cause of concern to the Court. To accommodate the Counsel who has no courtesy to even inform the Court about his difficulty or the difficulty of his client does not deserve any sympathy. The Courts are already over- burdened with cases. Its function is to be streamlined, hence the Court is to be very strict in restoring even the dismissed in default cases. 7. To accommodate the Counsel who has no courtesy to even inform the Court about his difficulty or the difficulty of his client does not deserve any sympathy. The Courts are already over- burdened with cases. Its function is to be streamlined, hence the Court is to be very strict in restoring even the dismissed in default cases. 7. This restoration application has been moved before the Court in January 2007 after a lapse of about 4 months. Moreover, the restoration application is not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay in moving the application. All that has been stated in the affidavit in support of the restoration application is that on 13-8-2006 a letter was sent to the petitioner from the office of Mr. Prakash Gupta, Advocate informing him that the writ petition was ready for hearing/final disposal and the petitioner should come or send his Pairokar alongwith instructions, but the petitioner did not respond that the writ petition was listed on 25-8-2006 before this Bench but since the instructions of Mr. Prakash Gupta were not complete, he did not appear and the case was dismissed in default and the stay order was vacated; that the Pairokar of the petitioner, the deponent, contacted Mr. Prakash Gupta, Advocate for knowing the status of the writ petition in January, 2007 and he was informed that the writ petition has been dismissed in default on 25-8-2006 for want of instructions. In the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner was advised to file restoration. 8. For the reasons stated above, the cause shown is not sufficient. Once a contract has been entered into between the client and his advocate, it is the duty of the advocate to pursue the writ on behalf of his client and do all things possible for him enumerated in the Vakalatnama. Legal profession is a noble profession. Lawyers nowadays may find difficulty in maintaining the high standards of the profession, but if they are to be in the profession they have to maintain it. Payment of fee by the client is immaterial. An advocate is duty and morally bound to assist the Court being officer of the Court. Legal profession is a noble profession. Lawyers nowadays may find difficulty in maintaining the high standards of the profession, but if they are to be in the profession they have to maintain it. Payment of fee by the client is immaterial. An advocate is duty and morally bound to assist the Court being officer of the Court. If fee or instructions had not been received by Sri Prakash Gupta, he could have recovered it from his client, but being in a noble profession which requires sacrifice he ought not to have breached the trust of his client which is a pious relationship in this profession based on sacred tradition. The client of Mr. Prakash Gupta may not have been able to give instructions to him for a number of reasons but in the capacity of an advocate and officer of the Court Sri Gupta ought to have appeared before the Court and informed the reason. If such application for recall on the grounds mentioned therein is allowed it would be harming the legal profession and the judicial system. 9. The application is rejected. Application rejected. .