R.L. Anand, J. - This is a Civil Revision and has been directed against the order dated 4.11.1998 passed by District Judge, Patiala, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in an arbitration matter award was made rule of the court by the trial Court against the present petitioner, which filed Civil Appeal No. 17T of 3.1.1985 titled F.C.I. v. Arvinder Kaur and others. The appeal was dismissed in default on 23.9.1986. It is claimed that the appeal was fixed for 23.9.1986 but on that date the local Bar at Patiala observed strike and the counsel for the petitioner did not appear due to strike. The petitioner was not aware of the fact of strike by the lawyers and the appeal was dismissed in default. It is claimed that the absence of the counsel and the petitioner was not intentional. With these averments prayer was made for restoration of the appeal to its original number.

Notice of the application was given to the respondents, who filed the reply and denied the allegations. The respondents denied that the Bar at Patiala was on strike on 23.9.1986. It was further denied that Shri J.K. Puri, Advocate participated in the strike. Moreover, the strike, if any, does not constitute sufficient cause for restoration of appeal. It was also pleaded by the respondents that Shri Gian Chand Garg and Shri Jagdish Kumar Garg were not authorised to file the application. With this defence the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the application.

The following issues were framed for the disposal of the application :-

"1. Whether application for re-admission of the appeal is filed by a competent person ? OPA

2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for re-admission of the appeal ? OPA

3. Relief."

The parties were given the opportunity to lead evidence and all the issues were decided against the petitioner and in favour of the respondents. Resultantly, the application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Patiala.

3. Not satisfied with the said order, the present revision.

4. I have heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the record of the case. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. Admittedly, the appeal was dismissed in default on 23.9.1986 and the application for restoration of appeal was filed just after four days. It is pleaded by the petitioner that on 23.9.1986 the local Bar was on strike and for that reason the lawyer of the Corporation could not appear. It is settled principle of law that for the fault of the lawyer client should not suffer, especially when the litigant is a corporate body which has no mind or soul. The Corporation would be the last person to allow its appeal to be dismissed in default. It is always interested for the final adjudication of the case on merits. Thus, there is sufficient cause pleaded by the petitioner that on account of unavoidable circumstances its lawyer could not appear on 23.9.1986. Hence I reverse the finding of the lower Court on issue No. 2.

6. With regard to issue no. 1 it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the application for restoration of the appeal was filed by Shri Jagdish Kumar Garg. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that he had no power of attorney in order to file the appeal, at the most it is an irregularity which can always be cured. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon Shastri Yagnapurushdasji and others v. Muldas Bhundardas Vaishya and another, AIR 1966 SC 1119, wherein it was observed as follows :-

".........If an appeal is presented by an Advocate without a Vakalatnama duly signed by the appellant he is required to produce the Vakalatnama authorising him to present the appeal or to file a statement signed by himself that such Vakalatnama has been duly signed by the appellant in time. In this case, the Vakalatnama had evidently been signed by respondent No. 1 in fav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document