1992 (2) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for setting aside order of dismissal of Writ Petition due to absence of petitioners and their Attorneys.
2. Delay in filing the application and prayer to condone the delay.
3. Claim of petitioners regarding lack of notice about the matter being on the board.
4. Responsibility of Attorneys to keep petitioners informed about case progress.
5. Argument for condonation of delay and setting aside the dismissal order.
6. Decision on the Civil Application.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an application filed by the petitioners to set aside the order dismissing Writ Petition No. 1499 of 1981 due to the absence of the petitioners and their Attorneys on multiple occasions during the court proceedings.

2. The application for setting aside the order was filed after a significant delay of one year and 129 days, with a prayer to condone the delay in filing. The petition was initially filed in 1981 and was admitted with interim relief secured in May 1981. The petition was scheduled for hearing in August 1989 but did not proceed to a hearing until June 1990, when it was listed for final hearing.

3. The petitioners claimed that their Attorneys' clerk failed to inform them about the matter being on the board, leading to their absence during the court proceedings. However, the court found it difficult to accept this claim, stating that the Attorneys should have been aware of the case being listed for hearing since June 1990 when the court reopened after the Summer Vacation.

4. The court highlighted the responsibility of the Attorneys to keep the petitioners informed about the progress of the case. Despite the dismissal of the petition in August 1990, no inquiries were made by the Attorneys for a considerable period, indicating a lack of diligence on their part.

5. The petitioners argued for the condonation of the delay and setting aside the dismissal order, emphasizing the renewal of the bank guarantee as a sign of their unawareness of the petition's disposal. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the Attorneys should have kept the petitioners informed, regardless of their awareness.

6. Ultimately, the court declined to condone the delay or grant the application, emphasizing that the petitioners, a Public Limited Company with experienced Attorneys, could not ignore the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Application was rejected, concluding the judgment.