The central legal point established in the judgment is that for the fault of the lawyer, a litigant should not suffer, and the procedure is meant for the advancement of justice and not to scuttle the justice.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 11.9.1999, passed by the Distt. Judge, Hoshiarpur, who dismissed the application of the present petitioner-appellant under section 5 of the Limitation Act and dismissed the appeal.

2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner:-

(i) Kirpal Singh, respondent before me, filed a money suit for a sum of Rs. 2,44,350/- against the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner. The suit was contested by the petitioner, who even engaged a counsel and filed the written statement. Rejoinder was also filed by Kirpal Singh and on the pleading of the parties, which need not be incorporated in the present order, issues were framed.

(ii) The evidence of the plaintiff-respondent started. The plaintiff examined some witnesses and closed the evidence. The case was adjourned for the evidence of the defendant-petitioner. Sufficient opportunity was given to the defendant to produce his evidence. Before I proceed further with this order, it may stated that as per the case of the plaintiff, the defendant was a resident of Canada. The case in the trial Court came up for hearing on 27.8.1997 and it was adjourned to 30.9.1997 with the orders that if the evidence of the defendant is not produced on that day, it shall be deemed to have been closed by order. Unfortunately for the defendant, who engaged a counsel, he was not properly informed about the day to day proceedings. On 30.9.1997 itself, the counsel for the defendant made a statement before the trial Court and pleaded no instructions on behalf of the defendant as a result of which, the defendant was proceeded exparte and an exparte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Garhshankar. When the defendant-petitioner came to know about the passing of the exparte decree, he filed an appeal before the first appellate Court along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, by stating that he came to know about the passing of the exparte decree on 11.9.1998. This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was contested by the plaintiff-respondent who filed the reply and denied the allegations. Issues were struck and vide the impugned order dated 11.9.1999, the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was declined. Resultantly, the appeal of the defendant was also dismissed as time barred and, in this manner, the present revision.

3. I have heard Mr. Parveen Kumar, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ranjit Saini, counsel for the respondent, and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case.

4. The only material point for determination before this Court is as to what is the duty of the Court when a lawyer pleads no instructions on behalf of his client. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Suresh Kumar v. Smt. Daryai and Ors. (1996-3) 114 P.L.R. 379 and stated that when a lawyer pleads no instructions, it is not obligatory on the part of the Court to serve a notice to the client and such a client must suffer irrespective of the fact that this lawyer has not given the appearance on his behalf. Mr. Saini also submitted that the conduct of the lawyer and the defendant indicates that sufficient opportunity was given by the trial Court to the defendant to lead the evidence in rebuttal but inspite of seven opportunities given to the defendant, he has not cared to come in the witness box nor he has examined any witness and, in these circumstances, the ex-parte decree has been rightly passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant-petitioner.

5. On the contrary, counsel for the petitioner submits that for the fault of the lawyer, a litigant should not suffer. The petitioner never received any intimation from his lawyer about the adjournments and also about the last hearing dated 30.9.1997. Moreover, when the lawyer pleads no