The main legal point established is the requirement for parties to show a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and the need for prompt and vigilant pursuit of their case.

JUSTICE J.M. MAILK, CHAIRPERSON.--Thelearned D.R.T. passed an exparte order dated 28th August, 2002. The recall application moved by the appellants on 14th May, 2003 was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16th May, 2006. Aggrieved by that order the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

2. The following facts emanate from the record. The case in question got transferred from the learned D.R.T., Jabalpur and came up for hearing before the learned D.R.T., Allahabad on 20th December, 2000. It was adjourned to 18th October, 2001. On the same day Shri A.P. Singh, Advocate appeared on behalf of all the defendants-appellants. The case was fixed for filing reply along with evidence on 28th December, 2001. From 28th December, 2001 it was adjourned to 25th January, 2002. On 25th January, 2002 Shri A.P. Singh, Advocate filed his vakalatnama for all the defendants. The case was adjourned to 19th February, 2002, 19th March, 2002 and 21st May, 2002. On 21st May, 2002 none appeared for the appellants and as. such they were proceeded against ex-parte. The case was fixed for ex-parte arguments on 26th August, 2002. On 26th August, 2002 ex-parte arguments were heard and the ex-parte judgment was announced on 28th August, 2002.

3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the appellant made four submissions. The first submission made by the Counsel for the appellant was that Dr. Narayan Ray, appellant No.2, remained sick and was unable to attend the Court proceedings. In order to embolden his case, Counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the medical certificate dated 19th August, 2002 adduced before the learned D.R.T. The certificate is reproduced as under :-

"This is to certify that Mr. Narain Ray, S/o Shri P.K. Ray, r/o C179/178, Shastri Nagar, Betiahata, Gorakhpur, U.P. is under my treatment from 12th February, 2002.

He is suffering from Osteoarthritis and advised to take complete bed rest for about one year w.e.f. 12th February, 2002 to 11th February, 2003. It is necessary for his health";

4. There are three other certificates which were placed on record, one issued by Guru Harikishan Hospital showing Serology Test with the result Negative dated 10th December, 2002 and another certificate issued by Servants of the People Society, Delhi branch with the result, "both knees A.P. Let Bilamal Osteoarthritis" and last certificate issued by Charitable Medical Clinic, Servants of the People Society, New Delhi dated 9th February, 2002.

5. It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence that the appellant was never admitted in any hospital and secondly, he got his treatment at New Delhi.

6. The learned advocate vehemently argued that the appellant was not in a position to attend the Court due to sickness.

7. The second connected submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the appellant No.2 tried to contact his Counsel and wrote letters dated 26th November, 2001, 20th February, 2002, 25th March, 2002 and 5th April, 2002 but did not get any response from his advocate. These letters was sent under U.P.C.; one letter was sent under registered post as it appears from the letter itself, but no registered A.D. Card or postal receipt saw the light of the day. The copies of this letter are type written in English Language, which go to depict that the appellant is an educated person.

8. In support of his case the learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted two authorities, first is in Rafiq v. Munsilal,1 wherein it was held that party should not suffer for misdemeanour or inaction of his Counsel. It was observed-

1. AIR 1981 SC 1400.

"As we feel that the party is not responsible because he has done whatever was possible and was in his power to do, the costs amounting to Rs. 200/- should be recovered from the advocate who absented himself. The right to execute that order is reserved with the party represented by Mr. A.K. Sanghi."

9. The learned Counsel for the appellant also drew the attent