JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The instant revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the order dated 7.4.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, whereby the application, bearing Misc. Case No. 39-C/2010 filed by the revisionists under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was rejected. 3. Undisputed facts of the case are that a suit for recovery? of the consultancy fee has been filed by the opposite party No.2-Rail India Technical & Economic Services Ltd., which was numbered as Regular Suit No. 319 of 2002, against the revisionists. The said suit was decreed ex parte by the order dated 16.1.2006 in favour of the opposite party No.2.? Immediately thereafter, the revisionists filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling and setting-aside the ex parte decree dated 16.1.2006, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by the order dated 25.4.2009.? On 30.5.2009, revisionists filed an application for recalling the order dated 25.4.2009 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which were allowed by the opposite party No.1 with cost of Rs.500 each (total cost of Rs.1000/-) and the revisionists were directed to deposit the said cost within fifteen days, vide order dated 29.1.2010.? 4. Pursuant to the order dated 29.1.2010, learned Counsel for the revisionists could not deposit the cost within time and as such, revisionists filed an application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure along with the copy of tender for depositing the costs, which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 39-C/2010 with a prayer to condone the delay in making the payment of cost and further for passing the tender so that the costs be made good, to? which opposite party No.2 filed an objection.? The said application [Misc. Case No. 39-C/2010] was rejected by the order dated 7.4.2010.? Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists preferred the instant revision. Case No. 39-C/2010 with a prayer to condone the delay in making the payment of cost and further for passing the tender so that the costs be made good, to? which opposite party No.2 filed an objection.? The said application [Misc. Case No. 39-C/2010] was rejected by the order dated 7.4.2010.? Feeling aggrieved, the revisionists preferred the instant revision. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submits that he has taken a plea in the affidavit in support of the application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure that the revisionists have failed to note down the period for depositing the costs and as such, the costs could not be paid within the stipulated time granted by the Court and further as there has been holiday since 27.2.2010 till 2.3.2010 and Court remained closed and thereafter the revisionists' counsel did not allow the Court from 3.3.2010 to 5.3.2010 as he fell ill, but the Court below did not consider the said submission and rejected the application under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that in the written statement filed in suit, the revisionists have admitted the liability to make payment of the amount and as such, the suit was decided ex parte.? He submits that an application for recall of the order for proceeding ex parte was filed without the same being signed by any of the revisionists and it was rejected and the suit was proceeded and was decreed.? Thereafter, revisionist filed Miscellaneous Case No. 77 C of 2006 along with an application for?? condonation of delay and managed to drag it for about three years and ultimately it was rejected on 25.4.2009.? Then, they filed Misc. Case No. 74C of 2009 under Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure for restoration of Misc. Case No. 77C of 2006 and this too was filed with an application for condonation of delay.? On 29.1.2010, the revisionists filed counter affidavit as objections against the application for condondation of delay as also against the application under Section 151 of the Condonation of delay for restoration of the earlier misc. case.? The respondent No.2 did not file any rejoinder affidavit and the averments made in the counter affidavits remained uncontroverted, yet both the applications were allowed on 29.1.2010 itself subject to payment of costs.? case.? The respondent No.2 did not file any rejoinder affidavit and the averments made in the counter affidavits remained uncontroverted, yet both the applications were allowed on 29.1.2010 itself subject to payment of costs.? The respondent No.2 did not fulfil the condition imposed by the Court in the order and they have filed an application for extension of time, which was rightly rejected by the court below. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. The revisionists should not have been punished for the lapse of the lawyer, when the law permitted him to decide the case. I get some support from the abovesaid observation from Rafiq v. Munshi Lal, ( AIR 1981 SC. 1400 )(supra) wherein it was observed (at p. 1401) :-- "..........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 village or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the Courts procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the 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 appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job" It has further been observed by the Apex Court in Rafiq (Supra) that "What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power and expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, as Mr. A. K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. If we reject this appeal, as Mr. A. K. Sanghi invited us to do, the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is property that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative." The above observations were made in an appeal. However, after the evidence has been led by the parties in the trial Court, the litigant has to do nothing thereafter and it is the sole responsibility of the lawyer to argue the case. Thus the above observations are fully applicable to the case pending in the trial Court, when it reaches the stage of arguments." 8. Under the circumstances, the order dated 7.4.2010 is set-aside.? The revision is allowed.? It is provided that in case the revisionists deposits the cost as awarded by the Court below along with 12 % interest by 30.4.2010, the trial Court will proceed in accordance with law.