2019 (11) TMI 1816 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking restoration of petition which was dismissed in non compliance of peremptory order - applicant submits that due to inadvertent, default could not be cured within stipulated time as has been granted by this Court - HELD THAT - Considered the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAFIQ AND ANOTHER VERSUS MUNSHILAL AND ANOTHER 1981 (4) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT wherein, it is categorically held that for the fault of counsel, a party should not be made to suffer. Therefore, this court deems it fit to allow the MCC. The Misc. Civil Case is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- to be deposited in the Legal Aid Services within seven working days.

Summary

Issues:
- Restoration of W.P. No. 18181/2019 dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order.
- Application for restoration filed due to inadvertent default and mistake of counsel.
- Legal principle regarding party not to suffer for counsel's fault.
- Reference to judgments by the Supreme Court in similar cases.
- Decision on allowing the Misc. Civil Case (MCC) for restoration.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Misc. Civil Case (MCC) filed for the restoration of W.P. No. 18181/2019, which was dismissed due to non-compliance with a peremptory order dated 03.09.2019. The petitioner's counsel argued that the default was inadvertent and could not be rectified within the granted time, leading to the dismissal. Emphasizing the principle that a litigant should not suffer for the faults of their counsel, the counsel cited the Supreme Court judgment in the case of M.K.Prasad Vs. P.Armugam (2001) 6 SCC 176, highlighting the responsibility of the advocate selected by the party. The court considered this argument and reviewed the record along with the submissions made.

In the judgment, the court referenced the legal position established by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq & Ors. Vs. Munshilal and Anr. (AIR 1981 SC 1400), emphasizing that a party who has engaged an advocate and fulfilled their obligations should not bear the consequences of the counsel's inaction. Furthermore, the court examined the Supreme Court judgment in M.K.Prasad Vs. P.Armugam (2001) 6 SCC 176, where the court stressed the importance of considering the circumstances, the property involved, and the interests of the parties before ousting a litigant due to counsel's lapses.

Based on the legal precedents and principles highlighted in the Supreme Court judgments, the court concluded that the petitioner should not suffer due to the fault of their counsel. Therefore, the court allowed the Misc. Civil Case for restoration, subject to the payment of costs within a specified period. The court directed the restoration of W.P. No. 18181/2019 to its original number and ordered the maintenance of a copy of the order in the record. The judgment exemplifies the application of legal principles to ensure justice and prevent undue hardship to litigants affected by counsel's errors.