Back
2003 Supreme(J&K) 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
B.C. Patel,S.K. Gupta, JJ.
Pritam Lal Trehan - Appellant
Versus
Piara Lal Saraf - Respondent
CIMA No. 83-A/2001
Decided On : 21 February, 2003
Advocate For Respondent: D.C. Raina
Advocate For Respondent: Irfan Noor
Advocate For Appellant:Petitioner in person
Advocates have a duty to remain present in court or convey information to the other side if unable to attend, and parties in person should make arrangements for the matter to proceed in the absence of the advocate.
Headnote:
Adjournment - Non-appearance of Advocate - Stay vacated - Duty of Advocate to remain present or convey information to the other side
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's advocate did not appear in court despite the matter being listed for final hearing. The appellant requested an adjournment, citing the advocate's illness, but the court vacated the stay and ordered the matter to be listed in the usual course.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's advocate did not remain present in court as ordered, and the party in person failed to make arrangements for the matter to proceed. The court vacated the stay and ordered the matter to be listed in the usual course.
Issues: Non-appearance of appellant's advocate, request for adjournment, duty of advocate to convey information to the other side
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of the advocate to remain present in court or convey information to the other side if unable to attend was emphasized by the court. The court also noted that the party in person should make arrangements for the matter to proceed if the advocate is absent.
Final Decision: The stay was vacated, and the matter was ordered to be listed in the usual course. The fax message seeking an adjournment was placed on record, and the court warned that appropriate orders would be passed if the advocate is not present on the next date.
2. On the last occasion namely 7th Feb., 2003, when the matter was listed for hearing, neither Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate, nor any other Advocate for the appellant remained present. On behalf of the appellant , request was made to adjourn the matter. A strong objection was raised by the other-side about the manner in which the adjournment is sought. However, with a view to give a last opportunity the matter was adjourned on that date to today. It was specifically conveyed to the party in person that if the Advocate for the appellant is not present, the stay shall be vacated and the matter shall be dismissed for non-prosecution. Even today , Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate, has not remained present before the Court. Surprisingly, the party in person has placed before the Court a fax message sent to the party inter-alia seeking an adjournment as the counsel ,Mr. Anil Kher, is suffering with viral fever and he has cancelled his visit to Jammu. When it was conveyed , it was for the party in person to make arrangement so that the matter proceeds. Today , neither Mr. Bakshi, learned advocate, has taken care to remain present in the Court despite order nor any other counsel has bothered to appear.
3. Mr. Raina,learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that he has been waiting since morning for this matter and when the matter is called out, this type of request is made. Last time also, the request was made only when the matter was called out.
4. It becomes the duty of the Advocate concerned, if he is not in a position to remain present, to convey the information to the Advocate for the other side so that one can manage work accordingly.
5. It is in view of this, Stay stands vacated. Matter to be listed in usual course. The fax message shown by the party in person shall be placed on record. On the next date when the matter is placed on board and the Advocate is not present, the Court will pass appropriate order as observed earlier.
