Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 882 (ALL)

SAEED AHMAD v. TEHSILDAR

2012-04-11

SUNIL HALI

body2012
Sunil Hali, J. This is an application seeking restoration of the writ petition which was dismissed on 20.3.2012. 2. The ground for seeking restoration is that the petitioner's counsel had sent illness slip as such the Court was wrong in dismissing the writ petition. 3. Over a period of time a practice has been evolved in this Court that if any illness slip is sent by the counsel, the Courts are required to lay their hands off by not passing any adverse order. 4. Coming to the first question that the petitioner had submitted his illness slip as such the Court should not have passed an order dismissing the writ petition. It be seen from the record that the petitioner has submitted illness slips consistently on 13.12.2011, 20.12.2011, 3.1.2012, 10.1.2012, 17.1.2012, 25.1.2012, 3.2.2012, 10.2.2012 and 21.2.2012. On 20.3.2012 also illness slip was sent. 5. The first assumption of the petitioner that the writ petition could not have been dismissed on that date as he had sent his illness slip is legally misconceived. The indulgence granted by the Court in the matter of granting adjournments on account of any illness slip sent by the counsel is intended only to respect the statement of the counsel. The Court while entertaining the plea of illness does not doubt the statement of the counsel in this behalf and rightly so. The lawyers who are the officers of the Court and are the essential part of the institution deserve respect from the Bench as such their statements are not to be doubted. It is in light of this that this practice has been acknowledged by this Court. However, it will be wrong to assume that merely because an illness slip has been sent where doubts are raised by other side regarding the illness sent by the counsel, automatic adjournment can be ordered. It cannot be assumed in such cases that the illness slip is required to be accepted as a matter of course. In this respect when consistently illness slips are sent by the lawyers doubt arises in the mind of the Court as to whether they are bona fide or not. The Court cannot be precluded from analyzing this aspect more particularly in cases where interim orders have been obtained which are in operation for considerable period of time. 6. In this respect when consistently illness slips are sent by the lawyers doubt arises in the mind of the Court as to whether they are bona fide or not. The Court cannot be precluded from analyzing this aspect more particularly in cases where interim orders have been obtained which are in operation for considerable period of time. 6. Expression used by learned counsel for the petitioner in his application that he had sent illness slip but unfortunately the Court has dismissed the writ petition is based on the assumption that in such cases adjournment is inevitable. The impression one gathers from such declaration reflects that the learned counsel is under an impression that it is a mandate which has to be accepted by the Court. I am not inclined to agree with this perception of the petitioner's counsel. Court has the onerous duty to be even handed to both the parties more particularly when the cases are pending in the Court for such a long period of time. The Courts will not be power less in dealing with such situation where doubts are raised about the illness slips sent by the counsel. Courts grant adjournment by acknowledging that request made are genuine. It is also true that this indulgence should not be misused. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mishra appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner states that counsel for the petitioner is suffering from Diabetes as such he was not in a position to appear on these dates. 8. He further states that expression used in the application by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unfortunate and uncalled for and he expressed his apology on this count. Without entering into any further controversy regarding genuineness of the illness slips sent by the counsel for the petitioner, I accept the contention of Mr Mishra that learned counsel appearing in the case is chronic patient of diabetes and therefore he could not come to the Court. Consequently, the application for restoration is allowed and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status with a word of caution that such type of indulgence should not be misused by the counsel.