AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.A. Desai, J.—The non-applicant filed a suit for declaration as regards her ownership over the suit field and claimed permanent injunction restraining the applicants from interfering over the possession. The trial Court granted the temporary injunction. The applicants, therefore, went in appeal. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal observing that "when the appeal has been taken up for hearing the appellants Counsel Mr. Shelke has appeared but he was not prepared. He was narrating the facts which are totally irrelevant. Hence the appeal is dismissed."
Mr. Patil appearing for the appellants made a submission that Mr. Shelke was beginner in practice and junior Counsel.
It is obligatory on the part of a Counsel to render adequate and necessary assistance to the Court on facts and law by studying the brief. It was really a misfortune for the Counsel to appear and address without desired preparation. Such Casual manner can hardly be encouraged.
However, omit to perform the obligation on the part of Counsel would not render a justification for the presiding officer to dismiss the appeal on merit on the ground. The learned Judge ought to have taken pain to appreciated the merit of appeal. Hence impugned order needs to be set aside.
Revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 5-8-1991 is hereby set aside. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal afresh taking into consideration the pleadings and material as borne on record.