Court allows application under CPC Order 41, Rule 21, citing sufficient cause for non-appearance due to counsel's failure to inform clients.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a rehearing of a second appeal, recognizing the failure of the petitioners' counsel to appear and notify them as sufficient cause for their non-appearance in court. The judgment was delivered by Justice Pavan Kumar Dwivedi in response to an application filed under Order 41, Rule 21 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
The case, Misc. Civil Case No. 2808 of 2025, involved the legal heirs of the deceased Dayaram @ Dayla, who were petitioners against Smt. Raju Bai and others. The applicants, represented by Shri Vaibhav Bhagwat, argued that their absence during the proceedings was due to their counsel's failure to represent them without prior notification, causing an ex-parte judgment to be passed on April 15, 2025.
Justice Dwivedi observed that the applicants had engaged a lawyer to represent them, and it was reasonable for them to believe that their counsel would manage the proceedings. The court noted that once a litigant engages a lawyer, the responsibility to monitor each court date does not rest with them. The absence of the counsel without informing the clients constituted a sufficient cause for their non-appearance.
The court's decision emphasized the principle that litigants should not suffer due to the negligence or deliberate absence of their chosen advocate. This stance aligns with the Supreme Court's earlier judgments in cases like "Rafiq v. Munshilal" and "Ram Kumar Gupta v. Har Prasad," which reinforce the notion that an advocate's failure to appear should not penalize the client.
In this instance, the High Court found no evidence that the applicants were informed about the court dates or the ex-parte judgment in a timely manner. Consequently, the court directed that the second appeal be reheard, with costs of Rs. 10,000 imposed on the applicants, payable to the respondents within six weeks.
The ruling serves as a reminder of the advocate's duty to keep their clients informed and the judiciary's role in ensuring justice is not compromised due to procedural lapses.
Bottom Line:
Application under Order 41, Rule 21 CPC for rehearing of second appeal allowed due to sufficient cause shown by applicants for non-appearance, as counsel failed to represent them without informing the applicants.
Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order 41, Rule 21
Dayaram @ Dayla Deceased v. Smt. Raju Bai, (Madhya Pradesh)(Indore) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2841970
