AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The brief account of events is necessary to appreciate the controversy. The appellant herein sought transfer of a suit from Munsiff Sonawari to
any other court of competent jurisdiction through the medium of a Civil Transfer application bearing No: 87/ 1997 which came up for consideration
before the learned Single Judge on 19121997. Counsel for the respondents was present, none was present for the appellant and the application
was dismissed in default. In this backdrop an application came to be filed by the appellant bearing No. 1030/27 on 27.12.1997 seeking the
restoration of Civil Transfer application on the ground that the date of hearing was altered. The learned Single Judge has dwelt upon on this vexed
issue in detail and has found the appellant guilty of mis statement and in our opinion the finding so returned is well founded.
It is apposite to notice that the civil transfer application was listed in the regular case list and the name of the counsel for the appellant was also
reflected in the cause list which facts are not in dispute and nothing has been argued before the learned Single Judge nor before this court which
would justify the nonappearance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the relevant date excepting a bald assertion of lack of knowledge about
the listing of the case.
Here arises a question as to whether listing of a case can be presumed to be sufficient notice and to answer this question it is relevant to notice
that it is an age old practice in this court that the necessary particulars of a case, which include, number, title and names of the counsel, are
reflected in the regular cause list and cases are listed for admission, orders, preliminary hearing and final hearing according to the said procedure
and the learned counsel for the appellant is fully aware of this practice which is not rule of law but rule of practice, whereas, procedure and excuse
offered by the learned counsel for the appellant, if held tenable, in such eventuality, notice is to be issued for every date when the case is listed
before the court and this proposed practice if evolved is bound to protract the litigation unnecessarily and with a view to rule out possibility of any
confusion, we make it clear that listing of a matter in the regular cause list, giving necessary particulars of a case, is sufficient notice to the parties,
question answered accordingly.
Applying this principle to the case in hand, we hold that the appellant and his counsel had sufficient notice and the judgment dated 17th March,
1998 impugned through this LPA cannot be interfered with through this LPA. The L.P.A. is dismissed.