M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) SINCE the question involved in this application as also in D. B. Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 42/92 is same, both these applications are being disposed of together by this order. The brief facts are as under: -
(2.) D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 411/91 (the appeal) and D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2928/89 (the writ) were fixed for preliminary hearing before this Bench on 16-9-1991. The appellant in the appeal and the petitioner in the writ were being represented by the same learned counsel. Since none appeared in the above said cases, they were dismissed in default. On 11-10-1991 this application and the application No. 42/92 were filed in this Court for restoration of the appeal and the writ respectively with a prayer that the cases be restored. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and have also perused the records. The only contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the applicants is that on 16-9-1991 the lawyers of this Court had taken a decision to boycott the courts and to observe strike and even the lawyers who wanted to appear in the courts were stopped from entering the courts and, as such, it was not possible for the lawyers to put in appearance in the courts. It has been stated that the appellant's/petitioners' counsel also could not attend the court for the above said reasons and the matters have been dismissed in default and that the absence was bonafide on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the learned counsel. We have perused the applications and the affidavits filed in support thereof. Neither in the applications nor in the affidavits it has been stated that the learned counsel for the applicants was one of those lawyers who was willing to attend the court but had been prevented from doing so. Even no particulars of any one person who was amongst those who were preventing the lawyers from entering the courts and of the lawyers who had been willing to appear in the courts and were prevented from doing so, have been mentioned. During the course of the arguments also the learned counsel for the applicants did not submit that he was one of those lawyers who wanted to appear in the court but was prevented from doing so by any one. The fact, therefore, is clear that although the learned counsel for the applicants was feeling shy of stating so he did not appear in the court because the lawyers had decided to boycott the courts and observe strike on 16. 9. 1991. The absence thus was intentional and not because of any reason beyond the control of the learned counsel for the applicants. The question that arises for decision is as to whether the lawyers can be allowed to hold the courts at ransom and put their working out of gear by taking a decision to boycott the courts at any time according to their wishes and convenience without caring for their duty not only towards the courts but also towards the clients who had engaged them and whether such absence on their part at the time of hearing of the cases can be considered to be a sufficient cause for restoration of the matters dismissed in default. Our answer to this question is clearly in the negative.
(3.) ONE of us (N. C. Kochhar, J), vide order dated 27-3-1991, while deciding "maula Bux (deceased through legal representatives) vs. Sohal Lal" (1) after discussing the decisions of the Apex Court in cases "rafiq Vs. Munsi Lal (2) and "smt. Lachhi Tiwari & Ors. Vs. Director of Land Records (3) has held that the cases dismissed in default cannot be restored as a matter of course and in absence of any sufficient cause. We find no reason to take a view other than the one taken by one of us in the above said decision, As noted above, the facts in the cases in hand are clear that the absence of the learned counsel for the applicants on 16-9-1991 was intentional and not because of any bonafide mistake on his part. We, therefore, hold that there was no sufficient cause for the absence of the learned counsel for the applicants 16-9-1991 when the above said cases were dismissed in default and no care has been made out for restoration of both the cases. Consequently, these applications are dismissed. .;