the parties is whether the Defendants should suffer for the fault of their lawyer. Learned Counsel for the Defendants categorically stilted that the Defendants should not suffer for the wrong advice given by their lawyer. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Plaintiff faintly objected to the submission. We are of the firm opinion that a litigant should not suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his lawyer. In India, under our present adversary legal system the parties always appear in Court through their advocates. In India, the obligation of the litigants is to choose his advocate, instruct him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be an (sic) or a rustic villager but they do not have knowledge of the Court procedure. The party remains supremely confident that his lawyer will look after his interest, They implicitly follow the instructions of their lawyers. If, during the proceedings the lawyer commits a mistake in giving wrong instruction to his (sic)elents, like the present one, should the litigant suffer? The litigants are not acquainted with the procedural law. In the instant case the Defendants never dreamt that they would so suffer in obeying the instructions of their lawyer. The question as to whether a party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, negligence or misdemeanour of his lawyer, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Rafiq and Another Vs. Munshilal and Another, and, their Lordships answered the question thus:
