JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.N. Srivastava, J.—The subject matter of impugnment before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition was the order dated 7.10.2004 passed by this Court whereby second appeal was restored to its original number. The order of the Apex Court dated 16.1.2006 is excerpted below : “Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the impugned order having not been taken into consideration, the past conduct of the respondent and furthermore not being a speaking order, the High Court should consider the matter afresh, particularly in view of the fact that the second appeal was filed on 1.4.1983, the special leave petition is disposed of with the aforementioned observations.” 2. The quintessence of the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court is that this Court did not reckon with the past conduct of the respondent and further that the order restoring the second appeal was not a speaking order. 3. Now the case has come up before this Court by nomination vide order of the Senior Judge dated 4.7.2006. 4. Few facts forming background of the case may be recounted for facility of decision on the vexed points. Initially, appellant plaintiff instituted a suit for possession and for arrears of damages. The suit culminated in being decreed by the trial Court but the appeal filed by the Opp. Parties was allowed, and judgment decreeing the suit was reversed. It is in this backdrop that the appellant preferred the second appeal in this Court in the year 1983. It would appear from the record that notices were sent to Opposite parties fixing 21.11.1983 but when it yielded no result, the notices were sent by registered post which according to the facts on record, were received back undelivered attended with the endorsement of the post office that no such person was available at the address and therefore, the notices were sought to be served through publication and it was only thereafter the respondent No. 5 entered appearance through Sri S.M.A. Kazmi Advocate. The other respondents in the array of parties who are the full-blooded brothers of respondent No. 5 were not represented and therefore, the appellant was compelled to take fresh steps for service upon other respondents. The other respondents in the array of parties who are the full-blooded brothers of respondent No. 5 were not represented and therefore, the appellant was compelled to take fresh steps for service upon other respondents. Subsequently, the appellant filed Expedite Application on the ground that she was suffering a lot due to pendency of the second appeal and also on account of the fact that the respondents were acting to her detriment. The aforesaid Expedite Application culminated in being allowed by means of order of the Court dated 7.12.1991. It would further appear that inspite of the fact that case was expedited on 7.12.1991, it suffered adjournment on 21st Dec 1992 due to adjournment sought by Sri S.N. Verma learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. On 13.1.1993, the adjournment was sought on behalf of Sri S.M.A. Kazmi learned Counsel for the respondents. Then the case was heard by Justice Katju (as he then was) but by order-dated 7.8.1991, his Lordship refused himself from the close. It would further crystallize from the record that case was listed on 5.9.1994 but it culminated in dismissal for default. An application then was moved on behalf of the appellant on 20.7.2000 seeking to recall the order by which the appeal was dismissed for default. On 17.1.2001, the aforesaid application came to be dismissed for default. Another application for recall of order dated 17.1.2001 was moved which was registered as Restoration Application No. 85019 dated 7.5.2002 which also ended up in being dismissed on 1.5.2002. However, restoration application for recall of order dated 1.5.2002 was allowed on 19.10.2002. Yet another application for recall of order was allowed on 28.1.2003. Thereafter, restoration application for recall of order dated 5.9.94 was placed before this Court and was allowed vide the order dated 7.10.2004. It was this order, which was taken in challenge before the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and have also been taken through the record. 6. Thereafter, restoration application for recall of order dated 5.9.94 was placed before this Court and was allowed vide the order dated 7.10.2004. It was this order, which was taken in challenge before the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for parties and have also been taken through the record. 6. Sri Shyam Narayan learned Counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed that the appellant was initially represented by Sri N.C. Pandey, Advocate who was spirited away by death sometime in the year 1996, He further submitted that on gaining knowledge of death of her counsel, the appellant moved application on 20.7.2000 on the ground that Sri N.C. Pandey was prosecuting her case in the High Court and that the appellant had no knowledge of his death nor any information was communicated to her by anybody about his death and further that immediately after gaining knowledge, she moved the application. It was further urged that the cause shown was genuine and prayed for recall of the order dismissing the appeal for default. In opposition, learned Counsel for the Opp. party urged that there is no indicium on record to show that Sri N.C. Pandey represented the appellant in the case at any stage attended with further submission that power filed by Sri N.C. Pandey was not available on record. He further contended that the plea taken by the appellant was a charade intended for the purposes of restoration application. He further contended that there was massive delay in filing restoration application attended with further submission that cause shown was not genuine and therefore, proceeds the submissions, no case is made out for condonation of delay or for recall of order dated 7.9.1994. 7. From the above, the grounds crystallizing from arguments advanced across the bar by the learned Counsel for the opp. parties for consideration are two-fold; firstly that cause shown is not genuine and that Sri N.C.Pandey at no stage was engaged by the appellant and secondly that appellant is not entitled to get any relief. Before delving into the merits it would be appropriate to notice few facts. The second appeal was presented in the Court through Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, senior counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Sri Rudeshwari Prasad learned Counsel. The case was admitted and notices were issued on 5.9.1983. Before delving into the merits it would be appropriate to notice few facts. The second appeal was presented in the Court through Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, senior counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Sri Rudeshwari Prasad learned Counsel. The case was admitted and notices were issued on 5.9.1983. The questions of law formulated for determination were firstly whether view of the lower appellate Court that suit was not triable as regular suit by the Munsif Court but was triable as S.C.C. suit is erroneous and secondly, whether the view of the lower appellate Court that the notice to quit is invalid, is erroneous in law and further whether the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exit between the parties, is vitiated in law. 8. In the facts and circumstances, it is essential to scan the record all over again and recount the necessary facts. It is revealed from the record that appellant embarked upon steps for service upon the respondent immediately after institution of second appeal in the year 1983. The notices were initially sent in normal course and thereafter by registered post and ultimately recourse was taken to serve the Opp. Parties by publication. As stated supra, one of the respondents namely respondent No. 5 entered appearance and field Vakalatnama through Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, Advocate. The appellant took steps immediately thereafter by moving application for expediting the hearing as opp. parties were in possession. Hearing of the appeal was expedited vide order dated 7.10.1991. Thereafter notices were again published in the Newspaper. On 21.2.92, the case was passed over due to adjournment sought by Sri S.N. Verma, Senior counsel appearing for the respondents. On 13.1.1993, the case was adjourned on the personal ground of Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Counsel for the Opp. parties. The matter was thereafter heard by Justice Katju (as he then was) but the same was released on 27.10.93. From a perusal of the record it would further transpire that Sri N.C. Pandey learned Counsel for the appellant had taken steps on 18.8.1988 for service upon the respondents by registered post. The Photostat copies of original receipts are already on record in restoration application No. 117839 of 2003. Thereafter, letter of Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate addressed to Sri Rudreshwari Prasad is also on record to vouch for the fact that he intimated Sri Rudreshwari Prasad, Advocate about listing of Expedite Application. The Photostat copies of original receipts are already on record in restoration application No. 117839 of 2003. Thereafter, letter of Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate addressed to Sri Rudreshwari Prasad is also on record to vouch for the fact that he intimated Sri Rudreshwari Prasad, Advocate about listing of Expedite Application. Further, a letter by Sri N.C. Pandey dated 9.5.93 addressed to the husband of appellant that the case will be listed in July 1994 also finds place on record. The record of the case further reveals that the Expedite Application was supported by an affidavit and the affidavit filed in support of Expedite . Application testifies to the fact that the deponent of the affidavit was identified by the clerk of Sri N.C. Pandey though it was moved by Sri Rudreshwari Prasad Advocate and further that the name of Sri N.C. Pandey was also typed in the application. Further in the affidavit of Service of Laxmi Kumar Tiwari, husband of the appellant sworn on 13.9.1990, the deponent was again identified by the clerk of Sri N.C. Pandey, Advocate. Further a letter written by Sri N.C. Pandey dated 23.11.1983 addressed to Deputy Registrar of the Court requesting to list Expedite Application before Hon. the Chief Justice is also on record which was acted upon by the Deputy Registrar by directing Section Officer (Second Appeal Section) to check and list the case for 2.12.1987. There is yet another application on record dated 12.8.98, which was duly signed by Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate. The prayer in the said application is to the effect that service of summons on defendants be ordered by registered post, which was allowed on 12.8.88. There is another document on record i.e. Vakalatnama of Dinesh Chand Pandey executed by appellant in favour of Dinesh Chand on which is affixed signature of Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate as witness. Though Vakalatnama of Sri N.C. Pandey is not traceable on record but the documents referred to above which are on record go to vouch for the fact that Sri N.C. Pandey was the counsel representing the appellant. None of the documents referred to above have been repudiated by the learned Counsel for the opp. parties. Though Vakalatnama of Sri N.C. Pandey is not traceable on record but the documents referred to above which are on record go to vouch for the fact that Sri N.C. Pandey was the counsel representing the appellant. None of the documents referred to above have been repudiated by the learned Counsel for the opp. parties. What is further noticeable from the above facts, that the appellant has been pursuing the matter assiduously since 1983 in this Court through Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate and there is nothing on record to show that at any stage, the appellant seemed to be wanting in efforts. Again there is nothing on record to point to the fact that the appellant did not take any steps with promptitude as required or anything evidencing lackadaisical approach/attitude on her part. On the other hand, there is ample evidence on record to show that Sri N.C. Pandey, Advocate was actually appearing for the appellant authorized to take all steps to be taken by the appellant who was prosecuting the case on her behalf till his death though Sri Rajeshwari Prasad Senior Counsel was engaged as Senior counsel in the case, and in the circumstances, mere non-availability of Vakalatnama of Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate on the record, which appears to have gone missing due to mishandling of the file by the office, does not furnish foundation for holding that the appellant was not represented by Sri N.C. Pandey. This Court does not agree with the arguments of learned Counsel for the Opp, parties that Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate was not engaged by the appellant and further that the false plea was taken by the appellant for recalling the order dismissing the appeal for default. The facts stated supra, do vouch for the fact that all steps in the case were taken by Sri N.C. Pandey Advocate on behalf of the appellant since 1988 and the appellant was unaware of the death of Sri N.C. Pandey, Advocate for want of any communication from any quarter and therefore, the plea that the appellant was unaware of the death of Sri N.C. Pandey, cannot be said to be a mere ruse to prop up the restoration application. Further, from the materials on record, this Court is left with no other alternative but to converge to the conclusion that sufficient cause has been shown to warrant condonation of delay. Further, from the materials on record, this Court is left with no other alternative but to converge to the conclusion that sufficient cause has been shown to warrant condonation of delay. Cause shown for non-appearance of the counsel on the date on which appeal was dismissed also appears to be plausible and convincing. It would thus be explicit that Sri N.C. Pandey was pursuing case on behalf of the appellant in this counsel who had taken steps for service of notice attended with other steps required for hearing of the second appeal although the fact remains that Sri Rajeshwari Prasad Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rudreshwari Prasad had initially instituted second appeal in this Court. There is no gainsaying of the fact that other counsels also appeared on behalf of the appellant but there is no denying of the fact that Sri N.C. Pandey was one of the counsel engaged by the appellant and he had taken all possible steps to pave way for getting justice at a very early date which included steps for expediting the hearing although hearing could not take place. In such a situation, the grounds urged clearly make out a case for restoring the second appeal to its original number. The appellant in the instant case is a lady and it is clearly borne out from the record that she had taken all possible steps to secure justice at an early date and in the circumstances, she should not be made to suffer for any fault of her counsel. Considering that this Court is a Court of record where presence of a litigant on every date fixed in the case is not a necessity. As stated supra, she had engaged a bevy of counsels and in the circumstances, if she felt rest-assured that there is no threat to her interest in the Court, and unfortunately for her, her counsels defaulted in appearance, she cannot be made to suffer for the fault of her counsels. 9. In connection with the above, decision of the Apex Court in Lachi Tewari v. Director of Land Records, AIR 1984 SC 41 may be referred to. In this decision, the petitioner had engaged three counsels but there was no appearance for any of the counsel. 9. In connection with the above, decision of the Apex Court in Lachi Tewari v. Director of Land Records, AIR 1984 SC 41 may be referred to. In this decision, the petitioner had engaged three counsels but there was no appearance for any of the counsel. The Apex Court held that the petitioner had taken extra care to engage three lawyers attended with further observation that nothing more could be expected of him. Yet another decision noticed by the Apex Court is Rafiq v. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400 . It was observed by the Apex Court in para 3 as under : “The disturbing feature 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 hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can 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 watchdog of the advocate that the latter appeasing the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job.” 10. Similar is the situation in the instant case. As many as five counsels were reportedly engaged in the case including Sri N.C. Pandey and in case her case ended up in dismissal for default of any of the counsel, particularly regard being had to the fact that she had no information of the death of one of the counsel namely, Sri N.C. Pandey, she cannot be made to suffer and the case merits to be heard and decided on merits. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the applications are liable to be allowed and delay in filing the restoration application is also condoned. 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the applications are liable to be allowed and delay in filing the restoration application is also condoned. In consequence, the second appeal shall stand restored to its original number. The case may be listed for hearing in the next cause list. 12. It is disconcerting that Vakalatnama of Sri N.C. Pandey is not traceable on the record of the case. As discussed above, it is clearly borne out that Sri N.C. Pandey, Advocate was representing the appellant till his death and therefore, the argument that absence of Vakalatnama of Sri N.C. Pandey on record belies the claim of the appellant that she was represented by Sri N. C. Pandey in the Court falls short of acceptability. The manner in which files are being maintained in this Court leaves much to be desired. By way of prevailing practice, no index is maintained like the system prevailing in the subordinate Courts. In the circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Vakalatnama went missing from the file on account of rough handling of the papers on the file it is not worth accepting that Sri N.C. Pandey appeared in the case without filing Vakalatnama. However, absence of indexing system has furnished ground to learned Counsel for the opp. parties to build up the argument that Sri N.C. Pandey, Advocate at no stage represented the appellant in the case. Hardly any day passes in the Court when absence of certain papers or papers not having been restored on record by the office lead the Court to put off hearing and this often results in protracting the disposal of the case besides consuming precious time in searching for the relevant document. In the circumstances, it is rendered essential that the office may maintain the file properly displaying all the documents including Vakalatnama on a separate paper by taking recourse to indexing system. This system shall be applicable to all new petitions/appeals being filed in this Court. In so far as, pending files are concerned, the office shall take steps in a phased manner particularly during the month of June 2007 to complete the indexing of pending files as far as possible. The Registrar General shall also take steps to re-orient the working of the office so that precious time of the Court is not wasted. 13. In so far as, pending files are concerned, the office shall take steps in a phased manner particularly during the month of June 2007 to complete the indexing of pending files as far as possible. The Registrar General shall also take steps to re-orient the working of the office so that precious time of the Court is not wasted. 13. The Registrar General shall issue directions accordingly giving guidelines in this regard. The guidelines so issued shall be put up before the Court on the date fixed. However, it must be ensured by the Registrar General that the new filings are properly index and indexing shall be updated from time to time by Dealing clerks. ———