Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 190‑8 of 1979 in Civil Review Petition No. 36‑R of 1975, decided on 13th, February, 1980.
--O. IX, r. 4 and Supreme Court Rules, (1956), O. IV, r. 23‑Restora tion‑Review petition dismissed for default‑Advocate‑on‑Record, not withdrawing from case in accordance with rule 23, Order IV of Supreme Court Rules, 1956‑Advocate‑on‑Record responsible to appear on date of hearing‑No separate intimation of date of hearing, held, required to be sent to petitioner.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 13th February, 1980.
‑As no one was present on behalf of the petitioner in Civil Review Petition No. 26‑R of 1979, it was dismissed for default on 5th of December, 1979. The petitioner has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 190‑R of 1979 seeking its restoration on the ground that as his Advocate‑on‑Record had withdrawn from the case, he ha no knowledge of the date of hearing and, therefore, he did not appeal to prosecute it on that date. We examined the record to ascertain if the Advocate‑on‑Record had in fact withdrawn from the case in accordance with rule 23, Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1956, but this is not so and, accordingly, it was his responsibility to appear on the date and no separate intimation of the date of hearing was required to be sent to the petitioner. This ground, therefore, fails. However, we would also observe here that the office should not have entertained this application in disregard of the rules and in future case should be taken to avoid such repetition.
Accordingly the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer