Civil Writ Petition No. 4634 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4634 of 2008 Date of Order: 14.09.2010 Des Raj Mal ....Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Dhirinder Chopra ,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab for respondents no.1 to 4 Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for respondent no.5. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 25.09.2001, 04.08.2003 and 28.11.2007, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar, Division Jalandhar, the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively. The petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner which was dismissed in default on 4.8.2003. The application for restoration, was dismissed on 28.11.2007. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision was Civil Writ Petition No. 4634 of 2008 -2- dismissed in default due to non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel. No fault can or has been attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel filed an application for restoration accompanied by an application for condoning the delay of 419 days by appending the affidavit of his clerk. The Financial Commissioner, however, dismissed the applications without recording any reason. It is submitted that the petitioner was not informed, by his counsel, of the initial dismissal, the filing of the application for restoration or the final order. The error committed by his counsel, in not putting in appearance, should not visit the petitioner with adverse consequences. Counsel for respondent no.5, on the other hand, submits that the application was barred by limitation. The applications for restoration and for condonation of delay do not disclose any sufficient cause. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, rightly dismissed the application. It is further argued that the delay of 419 days, clearly establishes that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the revision petition and has merely filed the present petition to harass respondent no.5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non appearance of the petitioner's counsel on 04.08.2003. The counsel Sh. C.L.Pawar, Advocate, filed an application on 23.09.2004, praying that the order dated 04.08.2003 may be re-called. The application was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Amit Kumar, his clerk. Shri C.L.Pawar, Advocate, also filed an application, for condonation of delay by attributing delay as he had misplaced the Civil Writ Petition No. 4634 of 2008 -3- brief. The Financial Commissioner dismissed the applications by recording the following order:- “Heard. Application for restoration is considered and rejected.” The impugned order does not record any reason for rejecting the applications. The petitioner was not aware of the dismissal in default, the filing of an application for restoration, the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit. A litigant retains the services of an advocate, secure in the belief that his counsel would pursue his case with due diligence. Negligence on the part of a counsel, particularly in failing to enter appearance, should not as a general rule, visit a litigant with adverse consequences. A litigant shall not be allowed to suffer for the fault of his counsel. A perusal of the application for restoration, the application for condonation of delay and the affidavit clearly establishes that the error, if any, lay with the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be made to suffer for the error of his counsel. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed, the orders dated 04.08.2003 and 28.11.2007 are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision afresh and in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appeal before the Financial Commissioner on 12.10.2010. September 14, 2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE