JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner heard.  The order dated 18.3.2013 dismissing the appeal in default is reproduced as under:

“18.03.2013

None for appellant despite second call.

It appears from record that on previous date of hearing also the appellant was not present.  Moreover, the postal stamps given for service of notices to the respondents were also not sufficient hence notices could not be issued to the respondents.

It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting this appeal, hence the appeal is dismissed in default.”

2.      There is delay of 25 days in filing this revision petition. This clearly goes to show negligence, inaction, and passivity on the part of the petitioner/complainant.

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Advocate Mr. Mohd. Wasim Khan was called for making enquiry about the status of the case but he did not appear on the same day or he did not inform the petitioner about the next date of hearing or the outcome of the proceedings on that very day.  Thereafter, the petitioner went on to enquire from the respondent but he did not respond.  Ultimately, another advocate was asked to know about the status of the case and he informed the petitioner that the case was dismissed in default.

4.      All these pleas and arguments goes to show that the petitioner himself was negligent, inactive for not pursuing the case properly.  If he did not get the reply form the advocate, he should have been vigilant and should have taken other steps to know what was the fate of his case.  There is no evidence that any complaint against that advocate was lodged before the Bar Council of India.  It is the duty of every litigant that he must post himself with the next date of hearing.  There are so many ways of communication viz. telephone, mobile etc.  The impugned order further reveals that this was not for the first time that none appeared for the petitioner. 

5.      However, in the interest of justice, we hereby condone the delay and restore the appeal before the State Commission.  The order passed by the State Commission is set aside subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs, which be deposited by the petitioner with the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund towards Uttarakhand tragedy.  The petitioner is directed to appear before the State Commission on 16.9.2013.  A cheque or demand draft of Rs.10,000/- may be deposited with the Registrar of this Commission, who shall further transmit the same to PMO.  The parties will show the receipt to the State Commission and the State Commission after satisfying that the said costs stand paid, will proceed further in accordance with law.