IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 374 of 2010 Date of decision: January 10, 2011 Gurmail Kaur and another .. Petitioners Vs. Mandeep Kaur and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This petition assails the order dated 13.10.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar, dismissing the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Having perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that Mandeep Kaur plaintiff-respondent No.1 (herein referred as, 'the respondent No.1') had filed a suit for declaration on 6.3.2003 against the petitioners and one Rakwinder Singh and two others which was contested by the petitioners and ultimately vide judgment dated 4.9.2006, the said suit was partly decreed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner Gurmail Kaur and Rajbir Singh and one Rakwinder Singh (since deceased) preferred an appeal on 8.8.2007 along with application for condonation of 307 days delay in filing the appeal and the said application was dismissed on 13.10.2009. The main plea set up by the petitioners is that the counsel engaged by the petitioners in the trial court was also their counsel in the earlier litigations. Due to their fiduciary relationship with their counsel, they had implied assurance that he would attend the case on each and every date of hearing and the counsel will call them as and when required. Believing their counsel, they did not attend the court whereas the counsel never called them to attend the court. Consequently, they could not lead Civil Revision No. 374 of 2010 -2- *** evidence in the suit as such their evidence was closed by order and the suit was partly decreed on 4.9.2006. Even after the passing of the decree, the learned counsel did not inform them about their rights to file an appeal. It was only in the second week of June, 2007, where upon receiving letter, they came to know about the fate of the case, then they contacted their counsel and asked for not informing them about the fate of the case, but they could not receive the satisfactory reply. However, on enquiry they came to know that the suit was decided on 4.9.2006, as such after obtaining the copy of the order, they filed an appeal on 8.8.2007, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal w.e.f. 4.9.2006 till 8.8.2007 was for sufficient grounds. Having deliberated over the aforesaid plea for condonation of delay the same appears to be without any merit. The suit between the parties remained pending from 6.3.2003 till 4.9.2006 but the defendants never bothered to know about the proceedings of the case during the said period. The learned counsel was presumed to only pursue the case and not to collect evidence for the defendants. It was the duty of the defendants to contact their counsel and provide information with regard to leading of the necessary evidence from time to time otherwise it would be presumed that the counsel acted according to the instructions as issued by the party engaging him. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the continuance of the agency of the petitioners and the counsel, or thereafter, the petitioners never revoked the agency or filed any litigation regarding act of dis-trust against him. Sh. S.K. Sharma, counsel for the defendants- petitioners duly attended the proceedings of the suit, advanced arguments, therefore, fault could not be found with him. It may further be observed that Gurmail Kaur while appearing in the witness box as AW-1 has admitted that she resides in Jhujhar Singh Nagar, Ropar which is hardly at a distance of 500/600 meters away from the court complex. She has also admitted that 2-3 cases of her were pending in different courts, therefore, she had been visiting her counsel. She had also been litigating with respondent Mandeep Kaur in other cases wherein she had been examining her witnesses. Thus, it cannot be expected from her that she would not lead evidence in the instant case. Since she has admitted having visited the court, therefore, it cannot be said that she was unaware of Civil Revision No. 374 of 2010 -3- *** the proceedings of the present case. No complaint has been filed against Sh.S.K. Sharma, Advocate before the Bar Council much less Bar Association, Ropar for taking action against him for not conducting her case well. Thus, the Appellate Court appears to have taken the right view of the matter that the petitioners have failed to show sufficient grounds for condoning the delay of 307 days in filing the appeal. No merits. Dismissed. January 10, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge