The duty of the counsel to inform the client of the dates requiring personal appearance and the need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice.

S.L. Jain, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 17-4-98 passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Chhattarpur, in Criminal Revision No. 160/97, the applicant has filed this petition invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Facts of the case which led to filing of this petition are that the applicant is the wife of non-applicant. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. for grant of maintenance. The trial Court passed an ex-parte order dated 7-8-95 and granted maintenance to the non-applicant @ Rs. 500/-per month, against the applicant. The applicant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge for setting aside ex-parte order which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 202/ 1995. Vide order dated 23-11-96 the learned Sessions Judge granted liberty to the applicant to move an application under Section 126(ii) of the Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. Accordingly, the applicant filed an application under Section 126(ii) of the Cr. P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. No reason was assigned for setting aside the ex-parte order in the application. However, in the affidavit enclosed with the application it was stated by applicant that his counsel informed him that he would be represented by the counsel and he need not appear personally. Whenever his personal appearance would be necessary, he would be informed by him. His case was fixed for 7-8-95, but, he could not appear on the date because his counsel did not inform him. His counsel also did not appear and the case proceeded ex parte against him. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the application with the observation that the same is barred by limitation.

3. Aggrieved by this order, i.e. applicant filed a revision before the Sessions Judge which was registered as Revision No. 38/ 97. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 15-2-97 holding that the application is within limitation and remanded the case for decision on merits.

4. Trial Court vide order dated 22-7-97 rejected the application on merit holding that the applicant has failed to give sufficient cause for his non-appearance and deliberately did not attend the Court with an intention to delay the proceedings of original case.

5. Against this order the applicant filed a revision petition which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 160/97. The Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dismissed the, revision and maintained the order passed by the trial Court. Against this order the applicant has filed the present petition.

6. I have heard Shri A. Usmani learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Pramod Verma learned counsel for the non-applicant.

7. Shri Usmani learned counsel appearing the applicant submitted that applicant engaged a counsel who informed him not to come in person on each date and whenever his presence will be required an intimation will be sent to him. The applicant trusted his counsel but on 4-7-1995 his counsel did not appear before the Court. It was the duty of the counsel that before refraining from representing the applicant he should have informed him. The applicant presupposed that because he has engaged a counsel, his interest would be properly looked after.

8. As against this learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant submitted that even if the applicant engaged a counsel, it was his duty to appear in the Court on the date fixed by the Court.

9. I have perused the record of the case. On perusal of the record of the trial Court it is clear that on 4-7-95 case was fixed for arguments. The case could have been argued by the counsel even in the absence of the applicant. The affidavit of the applicant shows that counsel had given him assurance that he would apprise him of the dates on which his personal presence would be necessary in the Court. There is no material on record to contradict the statement of the applicant in the affidavit.