Punjab State Handlooms and Textiles Development Corporation vs Sushil Kumar Jain and Another

M.M. Kumar, J.—This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 215 days in filing the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

Notice of the application was issued and the learned Counsel for the non-applicant-Respondent has filed reply opposing the prayer for condoning the delay. In para No. 3 of the application, the basic reason for not filing the appeal within prescribed time was that when the matter was listed for regular hearing before the learned Single Judge, the name of the counsel representing the Appellant was not reflected and therefore, the writ petition was decided by the impugned judgment dated 5.11.2009 in the absence of the counsel and he could acquire knowledge only when a copy of the order duly signed by the Superintendent (Writs) was received in the office of the Corporation on 11.6.2010. The aforesaid fact has been diarized in the office diary No. 3334 dated 11.6.2010 maintained by the Appellant. Accordingly, it stood explained as how delay of 215 days in filing the appeal has arisen.

Mr. Madan Mohan, learned Counsel for the Respondent, has not controverted the aforesaid fact, but has only stated in the reply to the application that no one has put in appearance on the date of argument before the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, it is impliedly conceded that the name of the counsel for the Appellant did not appear as is also evident from a copy of Cause List attached to the application.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that non-appearance of the name of the counsel in the Cause List would provide a valid basis to seek condonation of delay. The aforesaid proposition came up for consideration before Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Shanker Vs. Gobind Parshad Jagdish Parshad and Others, . In para 7 of the judgment, their Lordhips of Hon''ble the Supreme Court have observed as under:

It is a general practice in the High Courts that the advocates identify their case in the "cause list" of the day. An advocate''s non-appearance in a case when the case is taken up on the ground that his name was not shown in the "cause list" is indeed a sufficient cause. (See G. Raj Mallaiah case). However, the High Court remarked that the advocate did little more than filing the vakalatnama and that the Appellant was negligent and cavalier in prosecuting his case. In our view those remarks would be relevant in a case where in spite of showing the name in the "cause list" the advocate did not appear. In a case where the name has not been shown in the "cause list" the Petitioner or his counsel can not be found fault with for non-appearance. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order under challenge and restore the second appeal to the file of the High Court, to be heard and decided afresh, in accordance with law.

It is, thus, patent that non-appearance of the counsel on account of omission his/her name in the cause list would provide a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Accordingly, application is allowed. Delay of 215 days in filing the appeal is condoned.