Back
1935 Supreme(Nagpur) 23
NAGPUR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS COURT
Niyogi
PANDU AND OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
HIRA – Respondent
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 74 of 1934
Decided on : 21-11-1935
N T Mangalmurti, N V Gadgil, Advocates
Niyogi, A J C—The question is whether a Party is bound to attend the Court when he engages a pleader. Unless expressly directed, he is not bound to attend in person even in the original much less in the appellate Court. The absence of the party was therefore immaterial. As to the absence of the pleader, the lower appellate Court failed to address itself to the issue whether he was fully instructed by the party or not. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that he was fully instructed to argue the appeal on behalf of his client. There is no evidence of this nature. If the party does all he is required to do under the law to retain a pleader, and he is failed or betrayed by the pleader, it is manifestly unjust to visit the party with penalty. It is unnecessary to pursue the argument further, since all that the law requires is the assignment of a sufficient cause for non-appearance. The fact that the party had engaged a pleader is itself a sufficient cause for his non-appearance unless of course it is proved that he was in default in the matter of ensuring the performance of duty by the pleader. I set aside the lower Court's order and direct that the appeal be restored to file and heard on merits and disposed of according to law. In view, however, of the special circumstances of the ease I direct that the appellant do bear his own costs and pay those of the respondent. Pleader's fees Rs. 15.
