Can't Make Party Suffer For Counsel's Non-Appearance Or Failure To Make Alternate Arrangement For Appearance: Rajasthan High Court

While hearing a writ petition, Rajasthan High Court upheld an order of the trial court that set aside an ex-parte decree against the respondents on the ground that the counsel of the respondents had underwent eye surgery and thus owing to his health conditions, he was not able to make an appearance before the court for the proceedings. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted.” The writ petition was filed by a petitioner challenging the order of the Additional District Judge wherein an application under Order IX Rule 13 filed by the respondents was allowed by the trial court. It was argued by the petitioner that it was the duty of the counsel to make alternative arrangements for his appearance making sure that the respondents were properly represented and only because he could not have travelled 70 Kms from his place of practice owing to his health issues, the ex-parte decree could not have been set aside by the trial court. In this light, the Court ruled that the respondents had shown sufficient cause that prevented them from appearing before the court, and rejected the argument put forth by the petitioner that it was counsel's duty to make alternative arrangement and held that, “as far as the contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitoner-plaintiff that it was the duty of the counsel to make alternative arrangements is concerned this court is of the view that merely because the counsel representing the respondents-defendants failed to make some alternative arrangement, the respondents-defendants cannot be made to suffer for the same as it would not be in the interest of the justice.” In this background, it was ruled that the trial court had rightly allowed the application, and the writ petition was dismissed.