JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of this Court's order dated 30.11.2012, whereby writ petition was decided, though in absence of learned counsel for petitioner, since he did not appear despite the case was called twice. Learned counsel for review-applicant stated that order deserves to be recalled for the reason that there is an error apparent on the face of record, inasmuch no notice was ever served upon petitioner and he had no occasion to contest the matter before the Courts below, yet impugned orders have been passed against him which, if sustain, would cause serious prejudice to petitioner. He placed reliance on Apex Court's decision in Rajender Singh Vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, 2006 AIR(SC) 75.

(2.) Before coming to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for applicant, in my view, time has come when this Court must place on record its experience in dealing with the cases like the present one. Frequently and in a large number of cases, the counsels do not appear when the case is called out and allow the case to be decided, either as dismissed in default or on merits though ex parte by the Court itself after perusal of record.

(3.) Thereafter applications for recall or review or restoration, as the case may be, are filed, sometimes within a short time and sometimes after a long time, as it suits to the respective counsels. In fact, this is nothing but a different kind of Bench hunting taking advantage of leniency of the Court in accepting recall of the orders, whereby the cases have been dismissed in default or decided ex parte so that cases may be decided on merits. The Courts are always inclined to decide the cases on merits. If the counsels do not appear, the Court cannot force their presence by any means except of passing some kind of order. Many a times, Courts simply adjourn the cases and that too repeatedly but after all every case has to be decided. The cases are being list not for adjournments but for decisions and that too on merits. Unilaterally, it would be difficult to the Court to ensure attendance and assistance of counsels, appearing on behalf of petitioner or other side, if they decide not to appear.