K.LAHIRI, T.C.DAS
Nirmal Das Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Prasanta Das Gupta and others – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.