SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(Gau) 131

K.LAHIRI, T.C.DAS
Nirmal Das Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Prasanta Das Gupta and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.P. Sen and A.K. Laskar, for Petitioner: S.K. Senapati and B.L. Singh

Judgement

LAHIRI, J.:- We despise slow motion justice and long distance litigation. Accordingly we propose to hear the appeal dispensing with the preparation of the paper book and the records of the Court below and the learned counsel for both the parties lent their support and agreed to the proposal to uphold the cause of justice. We record our appreciation for the stance taken in assisting the Court to dispose quick justice.

2. Misc. Appeal 30 of 1982 was filed by the appellant in the Court of the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Silchar. He had engaged lawyer. The appeal was posted for hearing on 27-11-1982 on which day it was called on for hearing but neither the appellant nor his advocate appeared whereupon the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal stating that he had been blissfully ignorant about the date of hearing, he had engaged lawyer and the dismissal amounted to inflicting penalty on him for the remiss of the lawyer. While turning down the prayer for restoration, learned Judge held that there was no necessity of the appellants presence on the date of hearing and learned counsel was "responsible for delaying disposal of the






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top