THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.Nos.666 and 677 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.18 of 2003 against the appellant and respondent No.2 for recovery of certain amount in the Court of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Tract Court) Guntur. The suit was decreed on 31.07.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant presented an appeal before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Guntur against the judgment and decree in the suit. It was returned with certain objections. The appellant re- presented the same. The appeal was returned for the second time on certain other objections. For the second time, the appellant, in turn, re-presented the same once again and since there was delay in re-presentation, he filed I.A.Nos.1291 and 1292 of 2010 for condonation thereof. The applications were dismissed for default on 26.04.2010. Therefore, the appellant filed I.A.Nos.1813 and 1814 of 2010 under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the orders, dated 26.04.2010. The lower appellate Court passed a common order, dated 14.07.2010, dismissing the applications. Hence, these two appeals. Heard Sri P.Phalguna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal presented before the District Court against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was not numbered. On two occasions, it was returned and ultimately, the lower appellate Court dismissed the applications. That resulted in dismissal of the appeal itself in limini. The appellant filed applications under Order 9 Rule 9 C.P.C. In the affidavits filed in support of the applications, the appellant stated that the absence of representation on his behalf on 26.04.2010 was on account of the fact that the members of the Bar at Guntur abstained from work on account of the death of one of their members. This reason did not weigh with the lower appellate Court. Extensive reference was made to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No.132 of 1988. Even assuming that there was no justification on the part of the counsel for the appellant to represent the matter on 26.04.2010, the lower appellate Court ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant by issuing notice to take necessary steps. The acts and omissions on the part of the Advocates cannot result in penalizing the parties to approach the Court. It must not be forgotten that the endeavour of the judiciary now-a- days is to take the justice to the door steps of the persons in need. When camps are being conducted to know the grievance of the citizens, a person, who has knocked the doors of the Court, cannot be punished for the default, if any, on the part of his counsel. Things would have been different altogether, had the lower appellate Court put the appellant on notice and proceeded to dismiss the matter, if the appellant also did not turn up. Therefore, the appeals are allowed and the orders under appeals are set aside. To avoid further complications in the matter, it is directed that the delay in re-presentation of the appeal is condoned and the lower appellate Court shall forthwith take necessary steps for numbering the appeal by requiring the appellant to comply with the objections, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:31.08.2010. kdl