Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bhandari Das vs Smt. Sushila And Ors. on 3 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997(1)WLC607, 1996(2)WLN319
Author: R.R. Yadav
Bench: R.R. Yadav
JUDGMENT R.R. Yadav, J.
1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed beyond limitation of 1292 days. I do not consider it proper to issue notice of the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for such inordinate delay.
2. An affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay reveals that learned Counsel Shri Kuldeep Sharma assured to the appellant to inform him whenever it is required. It is also alleged that Shri Kuldeep Sharma learned Counsel informed him that he is not responsible for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act but such compensation is to be paid by the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel Shri Kuldeep Sharma also assured the appellant that he is not required to contact him on each and every date. It is pertinent to note that in support of aforesaid averments no affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Sharma is filed.
3. The aforesaid assertions made in the affidavit do not inspire my confidence. No counsel can afford to advise his client not to attend the Court on each and every date and if such undertaking was given by him in the trial court, then, he was required to fulfil it.
4. The averments made in the affidavit to the effect that neither their counsel informed nor any letter sent about the progress of the case to the appellant, is not believable. This Court takes judicial notice of this fact that in the trial courts, the general practice is that all time the clients used to appear in the courts and when the cases are called on for hearing, they used to inform their counsel.
5. There is yet another reason not to issue notice on the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. As a matter of fact, engagement of a counsel is a contract between him and his client, therefore, a client is to suffer for the acts and omissions of his counsel to whom he engaged voluntarily.
6. In the present case, whatever Shri Kuldeep Sharma learned Counsel did on behalf of the appellants shall be deemed to have been done by the appellants themselves. The appellants are responsible for acts and omissions of their counsel.
7. However, if the appellants are aggrieved against their counsel Shri Kuldeep Sharma then they are at liberty to initiate proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Rajasthan Bar Council or may file a suit for damages against their counsel if so advised.
8. With these observations, the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is rejected and Misc. Appeal is hereby dismissed as barred by time.