JUDGMENT - BHOSALE D.B., J.:---Heard Mr. Walawalkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Modale, learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. These three appeals from order arising from common judgment and order dated 19th October, 2002 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, in Notice of Motion No. 374 of 2002 in L.C. Suit No. 1047 of 1999, Notice of Motion No. 375 of 2002 in L.C. Suit No. 1049 of 1999, and Notice of Motion No. 376 of 2002 in L.C. Suit No. 1050 of 1999, can be conveniently disposed of at the motion hearing stage.

Admit. Ms. Modale, learned Counsel, waives service for respondent. By consent of learned Counsel for the parties, matters are taken up for final disposal.

3. All three Notices of Motion were filed for restoration of the suits which came to be dismissed by separate orders dated 4-12-2001, 29-11-2001 and 29-11-2001 respectively. Though, the appellants in all three suits are different, the defendant is common. The facts leading to the appeals are similar and, therefore, they are being disposed of by common order.

4. The facts reflected in the impugned order reveal that all the three suits, which were transferred from Court Room No. 10 to 8, had not been attended by the learned Advocate on record. They were fixed on several occasions for taking further steps in the matters. However, none appeared for the appellants-plaintiffs after the transfer of the suits from Court Room No. 10 to 8. Resultantly, one suit came to be dismissed in default on 4-12-2001 and other two suits on 29-11-2001. The appellants-plaintiffs came to know the dismissal of the suits in default only on 11-1-2002 when the appellants wanted to move the Notices of Motion in the said suits for contempt. The affidavit of the clerk, filed in support of the Notices of Motion for restoration, has explained that the last date in the diary of the learned Advocate, in relation to the aforesaid suits, was noted by him as 10-1-2001 and thereafter, though inadvertence, further dates had remained to be noted in the diary. However, the adjourned date recorded in the Roznama of 22-11-2000 was 9-1-2001 and not 10-1-2001 as claimed by the clerk in his affidavit. The learned Judge, therefore, in the impugned order has recorded that the Advocate/Clerk ought to have made enquiry to find out why matters did not appear on 10-1-2001. The order further records that from the facts it has to be presumed that the Advocate and his clerk had knowledge about the developments in the matters and they ought to have been more diligent and careful. The learned Judge, while rejecting all the three Notices of Motion for restoration, has recorded that not only the learned Advocate and his clerk were callous in attending the matters diligently but even the plaintiffs were also in a deep slumber, who did not bother to attend the dates of hearing.

5. The disturbing feature of the impugned order is the reasonings recorded by the learned Judge in paragraph 7 thereof while rejecting the Notices of Motion for restoration of all three suits to file. Paragraph 7 reads thus:

"7. I may make clear that it is the duty of litigant to attend the Court and convey adjourned date to his Advocate who represents him on such adjourned dates. It is not that the Advocates or their clerks are to take adjourned dates and convey it to the litigants. This is unwarranted and undesired practice that is being followed and then on their failure to convey the dates the litigants come out with shelter that wrong of the Advocates should not result in penalising them. This practice is bound to be curbed so that the litigants would know their duty and Advocates need not extend such services and if they do let their litigants suffer for laches on the part of Advocates. This in fact creates breach of trust. That apart, in the present case all the plaintiffs have just not bothered about their suits and even after such knowledge on 11-1-2002 which fact is not supported by any independent evidence. The Notices of Motion

Click Here to Read the rest of this document