CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS petition is an example showing as with what sincerity and responsibility some of the Lawyers work and what price their litigants have to pay.
(2.) THE petitioner had earlier filed writ petition No. 109/1985, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 31. 12. 80, rejecting the appeal and dated 5. 6. 84, dismissing the review application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. It appears that this Court issued notice on the application for bringing the legal representatives of one of the parties on record and learned counsel for the petitioner did not file the P. F. and Registration Charges, though several opportunities were given to him. This Court passed a pre-emptory order on 10. 9. 93, but that was also not complied with. Thus, the matter stood dismissed in default vide order dated 22. 2. 94. THE application for restoration was filed and only on humanitarian consideration, an unwarranted sympathetic view was taken and vide order dated 29. 7. 98, instead of restoring the petition, the petitioner was given liberty to file fresh writ petition challenging the impugned orders dated 31. 12. 80 and 5. 6. 84. This petition has been presented after a lapse of two and half years from the said order dated 27. 7. 97. The order passed by this Court on 29. 7. 97 purely on humanitarian grounds, did not give any licence to the petitioner to approach this Court at such a belated stage. The issue has repeatedly been agitated that petitioner could not approach this Court within reasonable period as his counsel did not inform him about the said orders. Petitioner was informed only vide letters dated 24. 8. 99 and 25. 8. 99 (Annexures 2 and 3) and petitioner has deligently filed the instant petition. It is vehemently submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a client cannot suffer for the fault of his counsel and, thus, this Court is bound to entertain this petition even at such a belated stage. Compounding one hundred offences of Shishupal by Lord Krishna cannot be treated as an standard in every case. In such a serious misconduct, not lodging any complaint against his counsel amounts to compounding the said misconduct by the aggrieved party, and if the ground of misconduct disappears, a party cannot insist that it should not suffer for the fault of its counsel for the reason that the aggrieved party, after condoning/compounding the misconduct of its counsel, can neither force the Court nor the opposite party to suffer as the Court and the opposite parties had never been at fault. There is no ground in such a situation to penalise the opposite parties by entertaining the petition at such a belated stage, nor the Courts are under any obligation to entertain such stale claims. In the instant case, the petition stood dismissed six years ago. Therefore, there would be no justification to penalise the opposite parties after such a long interval. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere at such a belated stage. The petition is dismissed. .;