The Court emphasized the importance of natural justice, asserting that a party must be afforded a hearing before any decisions that impact their rights are made, especially in the context of ex-parte orders.

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.J.Trivedi for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Anip Gandhi for respondent No.1.

2. By this appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act, the appellant has challenged the order dated 24.07.2015 passed in Civil Application No. 50/2015 in Misc. Civil Application (Stamp) No.3439/2014 in Special Civil Application No. 3307/1991.

3. By order dated 24.07.2015, learned Single Judge has condoned the delay in filing Misc. Civil Application for review of a Judgement dated 07.10.2014 rendered in Special Civil Application No. 3307/1991.

4. Brief facts recorded by the learned Single Judge are reproduced for ready reference as under:

“3.1 The aforesaid SCA was listed before this Court on 07/10/2014 and after hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent being absent, the judgment was pronounced allowing the petition and directing the respondents to hear the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court, failing which the petitioner shall be deemed to have been reinstated on the date of the order of dismissal. The aforesaid directions were issued, as this Court had found the dismissal of the petitioner in SCA in violation of principles of natural justice.”

5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the submissions made by both the sides while condoning delay, has observed as under:

“9. From the rival contentions, it appears that basically the applicants have explained the delay on two counts being (01) procedural delay and, (02) unawareness of various facts either by learned Advocate Mr.Pandit or incomplete information supplied by him to the applicants and thus unawareness of the applicants to the facts discussed above.

10. On the other hand, the opponents attribute the knowledge of various facts to the learned Advocate for the applicants Mr.Pandit, appearing then and argues that such knowledge of facts was available with the applicants. The plea of ignorance of various facts is sought to be met with by an argument that the learned Counsel Mr.Pandit applied for certified copy of the judgment immediately on 10/10/2014 and even otherwise the copy of the judgment was served upon the applicants by the opponent on 17/10/2014 and therefore they could not have waited for the service of certified copy and could have moved this Court immediately.

11. Having considered the rival submissions, there is no dispute that initially the main SCA was scheduled to be heard on 15/10/2014 and subsequently by an order of this Court, it was preponed and notified on several dates prior to 15/10/2014 and ultimately on 07/10/2014 the judgment came to be delivered. It also appears that the learned Counsel for the applicants was aware of the said order and therefore immediately within a period of 03 days of the said order applied for a certified copy of the same. It also appears from the letter dated 12/11/2014 addressed by learned Advocate Mr.Pandit to the Chief Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Relief Road Branch, Ahmedabad that despite being aware of the judgment as aforestated and having applied for its certified copy, he pleaded ignorance about several developments as discussed in detailed in foregoing paragraphs. It was not disclosed to the applicants that he had already applied for the certified copy of the judgment dated 07/10/2014, on 10/10/2014. Thus, a show was made about his ignorance and it is on that basis that the applicants argue that their learned Counsel Mr.Pandit was ignorant of various facts. It is settled legal position that for the fault of an Advocate, the party should not suffer. Therefore, the argument of the applicants that they were not accura