Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 624 (JK)

State through GAD v. Parshotam Singh

2017-08-11

ALOK ARADHE, SANJEEV KUMAR

body2017
Alok Aradhe, J. 1. Heard. This application has been filed seeking condonation of 693 days in filing the application for restoration of LPASW No.D-93/2010. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appeal was listed before the Division Bench on 26.02.2015 and on the aforesaid date, Mr. Gagan Basotra, who was entrusted with the file on behalf of the State government, did not appear and ultimately demitted the office in the month of March, 2015. It is also pointed out that on 26.02.2015, the respondent also did not appear. The appellants were not aware about the order dated 26.02.2015 till 20.07.2016, when the respondent served a copy on them. Thereafter, the matter was processed and certified copy of the order was obtained on 06.02.2017 and this application seeking restoration has been filed on 18.02.2017. It is also submitted that for inadvertence on the part of the Counsel, party should not be penalized and in the fact situation of the case, sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 693 days in filing the application for restoration is made out. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the Letters Patent Appeal which was filed by the appellants was defective and the same was pending. It is also submitted that for the period from September, 2016 till Feb, 2017, neither any explanation has been offered by the appellants nor any justification has been furnished for non appearance of Mr. Gagan Basotra. It is submitted that the appellants have miserably failed to show the sufficient cause. 4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is trite law that the expression “Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction so as to advance the cause of justice and should not be used as a penal statute in punishing the erring parties.” (See: Ram Nat Sao and Ors. v. Gobardhan Sao and Ors., 2002 (1) CTC 769). It is equally well settled in law that for inadvertence on the part of the counsel, a party should not be penalized. (See: Rafiq & Anr vs Munshilal & Anr: 1981 AIR 1400) & Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by LRs v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1 ). 5. It is equally well settled in law that for inadvertence on the part of the counsel, a party should not be penalized. (See: Rafiq & Anr vs Munshilal & Anr: 1981 AIR 1400) & Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by LRs v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1 ). 5. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, on account of inadvertence on the part of the counsel for the appellants and in view of the fact that the appellants came to know about the order on 20.07.2016 when the copy of the order was served upon them and this application was filed on 06.02.2017 as the matter had to be processed at various levels on administrative side, we find sufficient cause for restoration of the Letters Patent Appeal is made out. Accordingly, delay of 693 days in filing the restoration application is condoned. 6. In the result, CDLSW No.50/2017 is allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- in the Advocate’s Welfare Fund within one month from today.