Rajasthan High Court Restores Appeals, Emphasizes Litigants Shouldn't Suffer for Counsel's Lapses

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, has quashed orders of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal that dismissed two appeals for want of prosecution due to the petitioners' counsel failing to file necessary notices. Justice Dinesh Mehta , presiding over the case of AJEET SINGH RATHORE Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (CW / 18308 / 2024), underscored that a "justice-oriented approach" should prevail over "hyper-technical" considerations, especially when a litigant might suffer due to an advocate's inadvertence.

Case Background: Appeals Dismissed Despite Initial Merits

The petitioners, including Ajeet Singh Rathore, approached the High Court challenging two separate orders dated September 27, 2024, issued by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur. These orders had dismissed their respective appeals (Appeal Nos. 266/2024 and 265/2024) for want of prosecution.

The crux of the issue was the failure of the petitioners' counsel to file the requisite Process Fee (PF) and notices for service upon the respondents after the Tribunal had initially, on August 22, 2024, issued notices and even granted interim orders in favour of the petitioners, indicating prima facie merit in their cases.

Arguments at the High Court

Mr. Jain , counsel for the petitioners , contended that the Tribunal, having been satisfied about the merits to the extent of granting interim relief, should not have dismissed the appeals merely because the counsel "bonafidely failed to file notices." He argued that such a lapse or inadvertence on the part of the counsel should not lead to the outright dismissal of the appeals.

Mr. Paliwal , learned Government Counsel , representing the State of Rajasthan, argued that the Tribunal's decision was justified. He submitted that after obtaining favorable interim orders, the petitioners' counsel "chose not to file notices," thereby warranting the dismissal for want of prosecution.

High Court's Emphasis on Justice-Oriented Approach

After hearing both parties and perusing the case records, Justice Dinesh Mehta found merit in the petitioners' arguments. The Court acknowledged that while the petitioners' counsel did fail to furnish notices for service, dismissing the appeals at the first instance for such a failure was not justified.

The judgment highlighted a crucial judicial principle:

"At times on account of bonafide mistake or otherwise, the appellant’s counsel may omit to furnish the requisites, but the Tribunal should apply justice oriented approach instead of applying hyper-technical approach."

Reinforcing this stance, the Court cited a catena of Supreme Court judgments, including the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, reported in 2023 INSC 659 , which firmly holds that:

"for the fault of the advocate, litigant cannot be made to suffer."

Decision: Appeals Restored, Directions Issued

Based on these principles, the High Court quashed and set aside the Tribunal's orders dated September 27, 2024. Consequently, Appeal Nos. 266/2024 and 265/2024 were restored to the docket of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal.

The Court directed the petitioners to file the necessary notices within one week before the Tribunal's office. Following this, the Tribunal's Registry is to issue the notices and proceed to decide the appeals in accordance with the law.

With these directions, the writ petitions and associated stay applications were disposed of.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling by the Rajasthan High Court serves as a significant reminder to courts and tribunals about the importance of prioritizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities. It reaffirms the well-established legal principle that litigants should not be unduly penalized for the bona fide mistakes or inadvertence of their legal representatives. The decision encourages a more lenient and justice-focused approach when procedural lapses occur, ensuring that meritorious cases are heard and decided on their merits.