Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Adv. Tiwari for pltff present and tendered registered NM No.1327/18 alongwith
affidavit in support. TOR.
ORDER IN NM 1327/18
Heard LC for plaintiff. This is application for restoration of the suit which was
dismissed during the stage of removal of objection on 12.01.2018. LC for plaintiff
submitted that the plaintiff is now ready to remove all the objections and prayed for
restoration. He further submitted that the junior advocate handling the suit fails to
inform the advocate on record about the status of the suit and therefore there is no
negligency on the part of the advocate on record. He submitted that the junior has
already left the office, who was at the fault. He further submitted that due to the
health problem of the advocate on record the matter could not be pursued. He
further submitted that there was no deliberate intention and due to inadvertence the
present suit was dismissed and objection could not be removed. According to him,
the junior advocate was visiting the department for removal of the office objections,
but time to time, was informed about the subsequent date and even till date,
defendants have failed to file reply to the contempt NM 3913/16.
After hearing Adv. Tiwari, I have perused the roznama. The application is not
supported by the affidavit of any junior advocate. Even assuming what reasons are
stated in the supporting affidavit are correct, there is apparent laches and delay on
the part of the advocate for the plaintiff. Suit is lodged on 02.09.2016. It cannot be
said that since then, the department is reluctant to cooperate the advocate for
plaintiff. On the contrary, it seems that, Advocate Tiwari on record was present on
few occasions, but the objections were not removed. It also seems from record that
since 16.08.2017 neither plaintiff nor advocate for plaintiff were present for removal
of office objections or pursuing the suit claim till the suit was dismissed on
12.01.2018, for non removal of office objections. Therefore, the contentions put forth
by adv. for plaintiff for restoration of the suit seems to be baseless. However, litigant
should not suffer for the delay, laches or the negligence on the part of his advocate.
Having regard to the fact that though the suit was lodged on 02.09.2016, even after
considerable delay, the office objections were not removed and present application
too was filed/tendered after more than 2 months from the date of order of dismissal
of the suit, I am of the view that with reasonable heavy costs to be imposed on the
plaintiff, thereby giving opportunity in the interest of justice to the plaintiff, the
application is to be allowed. Hence following order.
ORDER
-- 1 of 2 --
1. Notice of motion 1327/18 is allowed.
2. The unregistered suit is restored, subject to payment of Rs.15,000/- to be
deposited with the office of Legal Aid within a week from the date of this order.
3 Plaintiff is directed to remove the remaining office objections positively within 14
days from the date of this order, failing which the fate of the suit will be the same.
In view of this, the suit is restored.
Adjd for removal of objection on 10.04.18.
-- 2 of 2 --