Sufficient cause of default has to be shown for restoration of the suit.

S.JAGADEESAN, J.

The appeal is directed against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.230 of 1998 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,35,000/- together with 12% interest per annum. The said suit was listed on 16.9.2002 for trial. Since the appellant as well as her counsel failed to appear, the suit was dismissed for default. The appellant filed an application in I.A.No.689 of 2002 for restoration of the suit. The same was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that the reason given by the appellant for the absence of her counsel cannot be accepted as a sufficient cause for setting aside the order of dismissal of the suit. The reason for the absence of her counsel being boycott of the Court by the lawyers.

3. Before us, the learned counsel for appellant contended that the counsel for the appellant did not appear on the date of hearing due to the lawyers' call to boycott the Courts. On that ground, the appellant cannot be made to suffer by the dismissal of the suit. In fact the loss sustained by the appellant because of the dismissal of the suit cannot be compensated by any other means except the restoration of the suit. The counsel's absence due to the boycott of the Court even though may not be a sufficient cause for the restoration of the suit, still, some terms can be imposed for the restoration of the suit so that the appellant can have the benefit of the trial.

4. We carefully considered the above contention of the learned counsel for appellant. It is for us to consider as to whether the suit can be restored by accepting the reason given by the appellant for the absence of her counsel. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the application for restoration of the suit, it is clearly stated as follows, "Due to Advocates' boycott my Advocate was also unable to attend the Court on the posting date." Hence, there is no dispute that the suit was allowed to be dismissed for default by her counsel by abstaining himself from appearing in the Court due to boycott by the lawyers. The reason for the boycott is not known. The lower Court disbelieved the version of the appellant that she was unable to be present in Court due to viral fever. We need not much dwell on the absence of the appellant because, if the counsel for the appellant had appeared before the lower Court on the hearing date and sought an adjournment, definitely the Court below would have granted the same. Hence, it is for us to consider whether there is sufficient cause for the counsel for the appellant to abstain from attending the Court under the guise of boycott.

5. The lower Court is situated at Nagercoil in Kanyakumari District. Instances are not rare as to the boycott of Courts in this District as evident from the past. Most of the lawyers' of this District are highly prone for the boycott of Courts and for them there need not be even any rhyme or reason to boycott the Courts. In fact no subordinate Judicial Officer is willing to work in this district. Among them it is understood that the posting in this district is a punishment. When such is the conduct of the members of the bar, we are of the view that the same has to be taken serious note of while dealing with the matters like this. Whether the boycott of the Court by the Advocates can be justified at all? The answer is the recent pronouncement by the Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the judgment in "EX-CAPT. HARISH UPPAL v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2003 AIR SCW 43)", wherein it has been held that the lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott in the following terms:-

"In conclusion it is held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or give a call for boycott, not even on a token strike. The protest, if any is required, can only be by giving press statements. TV in