IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. RFA 165 of 2007. Date of decision:20.11.2009. Shri Ram Dass …Appellant/Petitioner. Versus Land Acquisition Collector …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been directed against the award dated 31.3.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Shimla, dismissing the case of the appellant for non-prosecution. The case has been tossed from court to court and finally it reached the stage of evidence. Nobody has appeared for the petitioner/appellant herein resulting in the order of dismissal. A petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was instituted by the petitioner on 20.11.2003. On 31.12.2003, 9.3.2004, 27.4.2004 and 16.4.2004, the Presiding Officer was on leave. Nobody appeared for the petitioner on 3.8.2004 and actual date notice was directed to be issued to the counsel appearing for the petitioner for 1.11.2004, whereafter the case was proceeded with. On that date, the case was 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 received by the Court by assignment. The next date fixed was 27.11.2004 on which date the case was registered. On 4.7.2005, nobody was present for the petitioner. The Presiding Officer was on leave. It was, thereafter, transferred to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla. On 4.11.2005 and 9.11.2005, again the Presiding Officer was on leave. On 17.11.2005, issues were framed and the case was fixed for 26.12.2005 for recording evidence on behalf of the petitioner. On that date, the Court records that no steps have been taken for leading evidence and the case was listed on 7.3.2006 as last opportunity granted to the appellant for recording the evidence. On the subsequent date, namely; 7.3.2006, nobody appeared for the petitioner and the petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2006. It is well settled law that a party should not suffer for the wrongful acts of his counsel. This proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Rafiq v. Munshilal, AIR 1981 SC 1400; Tahilram v. Ramchand, AIR 1993 SC 1182, Goswami K.M. Sharma v. Dhan Prakash, (1981) 4 SCC 574; Lachi Tewari v. Director of Land Records, AIR 1984 SC 41; Ranipet Chemicals & Engineering v. Swastik Stainless Stores, AIR 1986 Cal 76; Tulsiram v. Sitaram, AIR 1959 Cal 389; Bank of India v. Mehta Brothers, AIR 1991 Del 194; Sushila v. Nandakumar, (1996) 5 SCC 529. From the record, I find that the case has a chequered history in that not only the Presiding Officer has been on leave on a number of occasions but when the time came for actual determination of the controversy, the counsel did not appear for the appellant. The learned Additional Advocate General submits that this is a case of gross negligence by the lawyer. She relies upon the judgment 3 of the Supreme Court in G. Ramegowda, Major etc. v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, AIR 1988 Supreme Court 897 and submits that the party and counsel are grossly negligent and their actions lack bona fides. As noticed earlier, the submission cannot be accepted on the facts established on record. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The facts are telling and revealing and that the petitioner cannot be punished for no fault on his part. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4.12.2009. Let the record be sent back to the Court of Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, who shall proceed with the case with due expedition. There shall, however, be no orders as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. November 20, 2009. (cr)