PRATIBHA BANERJEE,J. - (1.) This miscellaneous application No. M.P. 113 of 1989 has been taken out by 134 applicants for recalling the order dated 4th August, 1989 passed in T/A 1301 of 1986 (CR, 8729(W) of 1985). The present applicants were added as respondents to T/A 1301 of 1986 by orders dated 8th January, 1987 and 19th January, 1987, They had also filed their reply to the main application. T/A 1301 of 1986 appeared for hearing in day's list on 7th July, 1989. The counsel for the applicants as well as the counsel for the respondents No.1 to 7 were present but nobody appeared on behalf of the present applicants and neither any of these 134 applicants was present on that day.
(2.) While explaining the default, the applicants state in paragraph 2 of this application that on the date of hearing, their counsel, Mr. R.N. Das and Mr. S.N. Das (advocate on record) were unable to attend the Tribunal as they were engaged in a part -heard matter before the High Court, As a matter of fact, a copy of the letter signed by Mr. S.N. Das, learned advocate, stating that he was unable to come on account of the High Court matter, as aforesaid, has been annexed to the present application and is marked Annexure' A'. The hearing of T/A 1301 of 1986 was concluded on 7th July, 1989 and the judgement was delivered on 4th August, 1989.
(3.) The counsel for the applicants relied on two decisions on this point -, AIR 1981 S.C. 488. (Rafiq and Another vs. Munsilal & Another). It was held in paragraph 3 of the judgement that "under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocate, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the Court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest". It was further held that -"The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is negative".;