As we know about the functions of Supreme Court, it is the protector of Justice and fundamental rights, in all the situations when there is a violation of fundamental rights SC always comes forward to correct it. A couple of days before there was a ruling from the apex court while considering a case which is dismissed by the district court and is about the harm happened to the litigant because of lawyer does not appear on the court. Even if the advocate who represents their client could not appear on the court never made a harmful effect over the justice of litigants. This case was heard by the Justices Vivian Bose
The Appellant approach the apex court against the Karnataka High Court Order where his petition was rejected.
Apex court made the statement on this subject that “An order of refusal to readmit the appeal passed by the Appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code is made expressly appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of the Code to the High Court. In this case, since the Appellate Court refused to re-admit the appeal and dismissed the application filed by the appellant Authority, the remedy of the appellant Authority was to file an appeal in the High Court against the order dated 29.06.2016 under Order 43 Rule 1 (t) of the Code.”
Judges made a comment on the High Court Judgement that
“Be that as it may, in our considered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition. The High Court should have allowed the writ petition and the appellant Authority should have been given the indulgence of hearing of their appeal on merits.” lawyers in India.
While considering this case court refers the case of Sangram Singh vs. election tribunal, Kotah,.Court said that” In our view, the Courts below should have seen that the first appeal is a valuable right of the appellant and, therefore, the appellantAuthority was entitled to an opportunity to prosecute their appeal on merits. If the appellant’s advocate did not appear may be for myriad reasons, the Court could have imposed some cost on them for the restoration of their appeal to compensate the respondent(plaintiff) instead of depriving them of their valuable right to prosecute the appeal on merits. This is what Justice Vivian Bose has reminded to the Courts while dealing with the cases of this nature in Sangram Singh (supra) to do substantial justice to both the parties to the lis. Indeed, dismissal of the appeal in default and dismissal of the appeal on merits makes a difference. The former dismissal is behind the back of the litigant and latter dismissal is after hearing the litigant. The latter is always preferred than the former.”
The court imposed an amount equal to 10,000 Indian rupees.
Note:- We try our level best to avoid any kind of abusive content posted by users. Kindly report to us if you notice any, firstname.lastname@example.org