CR No.7192 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7192 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.4.2010 Pargat Singh and others .... Petitioners. Versus Hakam Singh and others ..... Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4.11.2004 (Annexure P-1), and order dated 22.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) whereby suit of the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short `CPC') on the ground of his non appearance and application for restoration of suit was dismissed on the ground that on 3.11.2004, counsel for the petitioners had not appeared. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to document (Annexure P-3) which is a true photostat copy of the front part of the brief of the case file maintained by the Advocate in trial Court in which, after 26.10.2004, he has mentioned the date as 30.11.2004 inadvertently, although the case was adjourned on 26.10.2004 for 3.11.2004. Accordingly no one had appeared either on 3.11.2004 or on 4.11.2004 when ultimately the order was passed. It is further submitted that name of the proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner is not mentioned in zimine order dated 4.11.2004. CR No.7192 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and another Vs. Munshilal and another 1981 SC 1400 and decisions of this Court in Pritam Chand Versus Shamsher Singh and others 1986(1) PLR 315 and Harbans Lal Vs. Gurmit Singh 1994(1) PLR 351 to contend that litigant should not be penalised for the lapse on the part of his counsel. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. It appears from the brief/file of the case, which is maintained by the Advocate in trial Court that he has inadvertently mentioned 30.11.2004 instead of 3.11.2004, as a result of which no one had put in appearance on 3.11.2004 as well as on 4.11.2004. In our adversary legal system, a litigant relies upon the Advocate which he chooses. In case there is a remiss on his part, the litigant should not be allowed to suffer. In the present case, however, there is no fault on the part of the counsel because he inadvertently mentioned the date as 30.11.2004 instead of 3.11.2004. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders dated 4.11.2004 and 22.11.2009 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for deciding the case on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 3.5.2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 19.4.2010 JUDGE Meenu