IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 13 of 2003 Date of Decision: July 22, 2015 Sewaku …Petitioner. Versus Smt. Maya Garg. ..Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J (oral) CMP (M) No. 1829 of 2014, CMP(M) No.1830 of 2014 & CMP 21129 of 2014 and CMP No.21131 of 2014 & CMP(M) No.1831 of 2014 This petition was admitted on 09.05.2003. Thereafter, it came up for hearing on 08.12.2008, when following order was passed:- “This case has been called for second time today. Earlier none was present on behalf of the petitioner. Dismissed in default.” 2. Petitioner was being represented by Mr. C.B. Singh, Advocate, who stood selected and appointed as the Additional District Judge in the year 2007. Sh. Sewaku, the original petitioner, was not aware of such fact. Also during the pendency of the petition, he 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 died on 30.12.2010. It was only when the execution petition was filed in the year 2014, present petitioners, being legal representatives of Sewaku received notices and came to know of the petition filed before this Court. Thereafter, instant applications were promptly filed by engaging a fresh counsel. 3. For all the aforesaid reasons, delay of 5 years, 11 months and 6 days in filing the application for restoration of the petition (CMP No.21131 of 2014), which in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Order dated 08.12.2008 is recalled and petition is restored to its original number and position. Both the applications (CMP No.21131 of 2014 and CMP(M) No.1831 of 2014) stand disposed of. 4. Also for the reasons set out in the application (CMP(M) No.1830 of 2014), delay of 3 years 6 months and 17 days in filing the application for bringing on record the LRs of the petitioner Sewaku, who died on 30.12.2010, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Abatement in bringing on record of the legal representatives is also set aside and LRs of Sewaku are permitted to be impleaded as petitioners. Applications (CMP (M) No. 1829 3 of 2014, CMP(M) No.1830 of 2014 & CMP 21129 of 2014) stand disposed of accordingly. Amended memo of parties is on record. CR No.13 of 2003 From the impugned order, it is evidently clear that default in not applying for the certified copy of the judgment and receiving the same within time is that of the Advocate. Delay of 3 months and 2 days, in not filing the appeal within the stipulated time cannot be attributed to deceased Sewaku. It is settled position of law that party need not suffer on account of the act and conduct of his counsel. Record reveals that Sewaku was diligently pursuing the suit and prior to passing of the judgment and decree, was in touch with his counsel, who promised to apply for the certified copy. 2. As such, impugned order dated 02.11.2002 is quashed and set aside. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be registered. Parties are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 20.08.2015, who shall decide the appeal on merits, after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 4 In view of the above, present petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any. (Sanjay Karol), July 22, 2015 Judge. (Purohit)