Allowed

M/S Resham Singh & Brothers v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 May 2012CWP/1913/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought impleadment of the Agriculture Marketing Board and restoration of an appeal dismissed for default. The court held that non-appearance of counsel should not penalize the litigant and restored the appeal to be decided on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impleaded Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board; set aside impugned orders; remitted for merits; costs of 10,000 to respondent No.3.

M/S Resham Singh & Brothers Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.1913 of 2012 (O&M)

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

:::::::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CWP No.1913 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:11.05.2012

¶6

M/s Resham Singh and brothers

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and another

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶12

Present: Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. J.S.Puri, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1.

¶14

Mr. K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 & 3.

¶15

¶16

RAJIVE BHALLA, J. (ORAL)

¶17

CM No.6755 of 2012

¶18

Prayer in this application is to implead the Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board as a party.

¶19

Notice to counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner accepts notice and

¶21

states that he has no objection if the Punjab Agriculture Marketing Board is impleaded as a party.

¶22

In view of the averments made in the application and the statement made by counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner, the application

¶23

CWP No.1913 of 2012 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶24

:::::::

¶25

is allowed and the Punjab State Agriculture Marketing Board, S.C.O. No.149-152, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, is impleaded as respondent No.3. Registry is directed to amend the memo of parties accordingly. CWP No.1913 of 2012

¶26

The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 23.02.2010 (P-3), vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default, and order dated 06.01.2011 (P-5), vide which his application for restoration of the appeal was dismissed.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may have been remiss in his obligation to put in appearance and press the appeal but the petitioner had entrusted his appeal to an advocate and he was not aware that his counsel was not putting in appearance or that his appeal had been dismissed in default. It is further argued that the petitioner was not informed either by his counsel or by the Appellate Authority that his appeal has been dismissed. The bona fide error committed by the petitioner may, therefore, be condoned by allowing the writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the application for restoration was filed after more than 8 months. It is, therefore, apparent that the application filed by the petitioner lacks bona fide and was, therefore, rightly dismissed.

¶29

We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

¶30

It is true that the petitioner was remiss in his obligation to follow up his appeal and ensure the presence of his counsel, but we cannot

¶31

CWP No.1913 of 2012 (O&M) [ 3 ]

¶32

:::::::

¶33

ignore that litigants repose implicit faith in their counsel and expect their counsel to follow up the appeal by putting in appearance and addressing arguments. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that nonappearance of a counsel cannot visit a litigant with adverse consequences.

¶34

In view of what has been held here-in-above, we allow the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, subject to payment of `10,000/- to respondent No.3 as costs, and remit the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits.

¶35

Parties are directed to put in appearance before the Appellate Authority on 03.07.2012, who shall decide the appeal within three months from that date.

¶36

(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE

¶37

11.05.2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE

M/S Resham Singh & Brothers v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Resham Singh & Brothers v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Nayar Sons Printers & Anr. Vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Krishan etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

M/S Armstrong Rubber Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Lovely Kumar Vs State of Pb.

Aartia Association Sultanpur Lodhi Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Santokh Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.