- (1.) THIS is an appeal by defendants No. 1 and 2 against the order ad-interim temporary injunction until the application for temporary injunction is finally disposed of.
(2.) THIS appeal is barred by limitation of four days. Caveat is entered by plaintiff and serious objection is taken to the condonation of delay. Since an order of ad-interim injunction is hanging on the head of defendants No. 1 and 2 we found that the application for condoning delay is to be dealt with immediately because of the provision of Order XLI, Rule 3-A, C. P. C. Delay is condoned subject to objection to be raised by plaintiff on a future date so that restriction under Order XLI, Rule 3-A, C. P. C. would not arrest the justice being done to the parties and plaintiff would not be prejudiced because it would get an opportunity of filing of objection to the petition for limitation when it can be finally disposed of. In view of our order regarding condonation of delay subject to objec tion by plaintiff-respondent, we are free to deal with the matter under Order XLI, Rule 11, C. P. C. and accordingly, we have heard learned counsel for both the parties on the questtion of admission. As has already been stated this appeal is against an order of ad-interim injunction we find that appellant raised no objection and the order of ad-interim injunction was extended from time to time. Last date for hearing of the same was 20th October, 1994. That day lawyers were on strike. If the lawyers were on strike, officers of the appellant duly authorised could have moved the court for permitting them to make submission by ignoring appearance of the lawyers who did not remain present to support the case of his client. No litigant should be permitted to suffer on account of lawyers' strike. Similarly plaintiff could have also disengaged its lawyer and appeared through power of attorney/agent for presenting the case to the Court. This is the best available course for Court to continue the proceeding and liberty of lawyers from abstaining themselves from work would not cause prejudice to any litigant. It is no doubt true that lawyers being officers of Court can advise the Court for benefit of their clients. Where, however, for any reason they do not make themselves available and a party who is likely to be prejudiced comes forward to put his case before the Court, Court should not deprive the party from presenting his case. Of course, duty of Court becomes onerous in such circumstances to appreciate fact of law itself without assistance of legal expert.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant is not able to state before us the next date fixed for hearing in the matter of considering the continuance of ad-interim injunction. In such circumstance, we are satisfied that a direction to the court to hear ad-interim injunction matter on the date fixed, would meet the ends of justice in case lawyers do not appear that day also parties are free to disengage them and move the matter themselves. With the aforesaid directions appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. .;