Bapna, J - (1.) THIS is an application for restoration of an appeal which had been heard ex parte on 14th March, 1955, and allowed by this Court.
(2.) THE present application for granting a re-hearing was submitted on 28th March, 1955, wherein it is stated that the respondent was first of all served with a notice of the appeal for 2nd January, 1952, and attended the Court on that date. It was adjourned to 22nd January, 1952 and 9th February, 1952, and on these dates too she attended the Court. On 9th February, 1952, the appeal was ordered to be registered in the register of ripe cases and no date was fixed for hearing or any other purpose. It was alleged that the petitioner being an old lady living in the mufassil could not come again and again for knowing the date of hearing and her advocate practising in the mufassil in a place, namely, Thanaghazi, was not in a position to see the daily cause list. THE petitioner alleged that she was under a bonafide belief that she would be given a notice of hearing. THE case was fixed for 14th March, 1955, without notice to the respondent or her advocate and she only came to know from an-other advocate of Alwar, who happened to be present in this Court on 14th March, 1955, that her case had been decided exparte. THE application is signed by Mr. Nityanand advocate and an affidavit has also been hied by him. In his affidavit he stated that he was present on 9th February, 1952, when it was ordered that the case be listed in the register of ripe casts. When cases arc listed in the register of ripe cases it is upto the advocates to keep an eye on the quarterly or monthly or daily cause lists and to appear in Court to conduct their cases (High Court Rules 72 & 73 ). If Mr. Nityanand had the disability of getting to know such cause lists himself he should have made arrangement lor the information being conveyed to him. It has been observed ay this Court on more than one occasion that the advocates practising in the mufassil should realise their duty in finding some colleague or other person in Jaipur to keep them informed of the dates of hearing if they are not in a position to get the information themselves. Learned counsel for the respondent cited the following cases which are not relevant to the matter in issue : Meghraj vs. Harnarain (1), Suganchand vs. Zorawarmal (2), Pannalal vs. Nandram (3) and Sohanlal vs. Devachand (4 ). In Meghraj's case (1) no notice of the hearing of the appeal was issued, after remand, to the parties and the appeal was dismissed for default. Obviously, the appellant could not attend the court without receiving a notice of the hearing of the appeal. In Suganchand's case (2) it was held that if there was good rea> on for the absence of the party, the reason for the absence of the lawyer need not be considered. In Pannalal's case (3) the counsel could not attend the case as he was busy in another bench of the same Court and it was held to be sufficient cause in the circumstances of that case. In Sohanlal's case (4) the case was in the hands of a lawyer and the lawyer though ill did his best to each the court but he was unable to do so. In the present case what we find is that the lawyer took no steps whatsoever to make it known to him as to when the case would come up for hearing though it was his duty to make some arrangement lor that information being conveyed to him. It was faintly argued finally that in this case the notice issued to the respondent was for a preliminary matter and therefore no notice of hearing had been issued. In the first place the notice which was issued by thi3 Court was not served and the respondent and her lawyer attended the Court on 2nd January, 1952, of their own accord. They were also present on a subsequent date when an order was passed by the Assistant Registrar that the case be listed in the register of ripe cases. Any advocate of some experience should have understood that it was his duty thereafter to keep a watch on the quarterly or monthly or daily cause lists and that no fresh notice would be issued from the Court. No good case has been made out for non-appearance on the date of hearing. The petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for special leave. His prayer is rejected. .;