A lay client should not suffer for the latches and/or negligence and/or default on the part of the lawyer.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against an order of Mrs. Pratibha Bonnerjea, J. dt. 30th Nov. , 1981 dismissing the appellant's application for recalling and/or setting aside of an ex parte decree dt. the 27th April, 1981 (wrongly mentioned in the petition as 6th April, 1981 ).

( 2 ) ON or about 12th Feb. , 1976 the respondent filed a suit against the appellant being Suit No. 61 of 1976 (Swastik Stainless Steel Stores v. Ranipet Chemicals and Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd.) for Rs. 1,78,347. 76 p. on account of damages; interest and for other reliefs. 2a. On 19th April, 1976 the respondent made an application for judgment upon admission for Rs. 78,037. 71/- out of which, according to the respondent, Rs. 68,038. 71 represented the amount of three dishonoured cheques and Rs. 10,000/- on account of security deposit as admitted by the appellant.

( 3 ) ON the application of the appellant, by consent of the parties, an order was made on 21st April, 1976 extending the time for filing of the written statement until 2nd June, 1976. The appellant made a second application on the 2nd June, 1976 for extension of time to file its written statement and by consent of the parties an order was made on 21st June, 1976 extending the time to file the written statement. The appellant thereafter filed its written statement.

( 4 ) ON 14th June, 1976 in the application for judgment upon admission made by the respondents stated above a decree for Rs. 78,038. 71 was passed in its favour. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said decree and also made an application for stay thereof. On 19th Jan. , 1977 the appellant's said application for stay was dismissed.

( 5 ) IN 1977 the said decree dated 14th June, 1976 was transmitted to Velore for execution. The execution proceeding was marked as E. P. No. 5 of 1977. The said execution application was dismissed on 6th Jan. , 1981.

( 6 ) BY an order dt. 16th Aug. , 1978 the appellant was directed to file its affidavit of documents within three weeks from the said date. As the appellant could not file its affidavit of documents within the said time by an order dt. 7th Sep. , 1978 the time to file the affidavit of documents by the appellant was extended until 21st Sept. , 1978 upon payment of cost of the application assessed at 10 G. Ms. as condition precedent to the respondent. On 21st Sept. , 1978 the appellant filed its affidavit of documents.

( 7 ) ON an application of the respondent on 15th May, 1978 an order was made directing the appellant to give inspection of the documents disclosed in its affidavit of documents within one week after summer vacation 1979 and in default thereof the defence of the appellant, if any, was directed to be struck off and the suit was directed to be transferred to the appropriate list of undefended suits and was to be heard and determined ex parte. In spite of the aforesaid order as the appellant did not give inspection of its documents the respondent's Advocate-on-Record M/s. R. N. Dutt and Co. by its letter dt. 12th June, 1979 informed the Registrar, Original Side, High Court about the appellant's default and requested him to put the suit in the appropriate list of undefended suits for being heard and determined ex parte. It appears that a copy of this letter was forwarded by the respondent's Advocate-on-Record to the then Advocate-on-Record of the appellant Mr. B. R. Lodge.

( 8 ) IT appears that the suit appeared in the list of undefended suits on various dates namely, 26th Nov. , 3rd Dec. , and 18th Dec. , 1979; 18th Feb. , 1980, 6th April, 9th April, and 10th April and 15th April, 1981 and 27th April, 1981. On 27th April, 1981 an ex parte decree was passed in the said suit.

( 9 ) IT is alleged by the appellant in the petition of its application made before the trial Court for setting aside and/or recalling of the ex parte decree that on or about 26th Aug. , 1981 it came to learn unofficially from its lawyer in the Court of District Judge, North Arcot