Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2978 (ALL)

Ram Asrey v. Addl. Commissioner

2009-08-27

ANIL KUMAR

body2009
ORDER : Anil Kumar, J. Heard Shri Ranvijay Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri G. S. Misra, learned standing counsel and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 30.10.2004, passed by opposite party No. 1 and the order dated 20.3.2001, passed by the opposite party No. 3. 3. Learned standing counsel has raised a preliminary objection that as the present writ petition has been filed at a belated stage and no satisfactory and sufficient reason has been given by the petitioners for filing the same at a belated stage, as such the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 4. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that he has explained the delay in filing the present writ petition in paragraph 12 of the writ petition, which is quoted here-in-below: That it is necessary to mention here that the petitioners could not approach within the time before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated 30.10.2004, passed by the opposite parties, because the petitioners have no knowledge/information by their counsel that their revision has been dismissed by the opposite party No. 1. 5. On the basis of the said facts, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the counsel who was conducting the case on behalf of the petitioners had not informed him in respect to the order dated 30.10.2004, as such the petitioners had no knowledge of the same, but when it came to the knowledge immediately thereafter they approached this Court in order to get redressal of their grievance by filing the present writ petition. 6. After hearing both the parties, the sole question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition that whether the negligence on the part of a counsel, who was conducting the case on behalf of the petitioners, can be said to be a sufficient and good reason for condoning the delay in filing the present petition or not. 7. In the case of Salil Dutta Vs. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185 , the Supreme Court held as under: The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal, i.e., the party who engaged him. 7. In the case of Salil Dutta Vs. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185 , the Supreme Court held as under: The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal, i.e., the party who engaged him. It is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex-parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognised. Such an absolute rule would make the working of the system extremely difficult. In the light of the judgment given by the Supreme Court, the negligence on the part of the counsel cannot be said to be a sufficient and good reason for condoning the delay in filing the case at a belated stage. 8. In the present case a sole reason is submitted by the petitioners for condoning the delay in filing the writ petition at a belated stage before this Court was a negligence of their counsel so in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court as stated hereinabove, the same cannot be a sufficient reason for the purposes of condoning the delay in filing the present writ petition at a belated stage that too after a period of 4 years, 6 months and 27 days from the date of cause of action which is occurred to them. 9. This Court in the case of Sita Ram Vs. Sri Dhar and Others, (2007) 1 AWC 255, has held as under: Previously Courts did show lenience and latitude in dealing with applications for adjournments and condonation of delay. It is high time a changed perspective and attitude is adopted, since the Courts are already overburdened with cases resulting in inordinate delay in disposal of cases. Those days of condonation of dalliance and delay should now be over and in cases where no sufficient and proper reason is assigned for delay, the Court must adopt the stern attitude and refuse relief. Those days of condonation of dalliance and delay should now be over and in cases where no sufficient and proper reason is assigned for delay, the Court must adopt the stern attitude and refuse relief. That will also help in transmitting a message that the Court will no more be indulgent and parties beware. 10. For the foregoing reasons the present writ petition which has been filed by the petitioners at a belated stage, i.e., after a period of 4 years, 6 months and 27 days from the date of cause of action which is occurred to them, the same is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.