Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jayanti Prasad S/O Ramsahaya ... vs Dayashankar Sharma on 27 March, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 S.A. No.2285/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 27th OF MARCH, 2023
SECOND APPEAL No. 2285 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
JAYANTI PRASAD S/O RAMSAHAYA
BRAHAMMAN (DEAD) THROUGH LRS:
1. RAMWATI W/O LATE JAYANTI
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE R/O
VILLAGE PADKHURI TEHSIL
GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. RAJKUMAR S/O LATE JAYANTI
PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: FORMER R/O VILLAGE
PADKHURI, TEHSIL GOPADBANAS,
DISTRICT SIDHI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRAVENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE
JAYANTI PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35
YEARS, OCCUPATION: FORMER R/O
VILLAGE PADKHURI, TEHSIL
GOPADBANAS, DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(NONE FOR THE APPELLANTS )
AND
DAYASHANKAR SHARMA S/O BALMIK RAM
BRAHAMMAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2 S.A. No.2285/2022
OCCUPATION: NIL R/O VILLAGE PADKHURI
TEHSIL GOPADBANAS DISTRICT SIDHI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT)
.........................................................................................................
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. On a call given by the State Bar Council of M.P. the lawyers are
abstaining from work in spite of letter dated 22.3.2023, issued by the
Bar Council of India thereby requesting the State Bar Council of M.P. to
follow the various dictums passed by the Supreme Court from time to
time in respect of strike. Even then none appeared for the parties.
2. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.3.2023 passed
in In Reference (Suo Moto) Vs. Chairman, State Bar Council of
M.P., (W.P.No.7295/2023) has issued following directions :-
"(i) All the advocates throughout the State of
Madhya Pradesh are hereby directed to attend to
their court work forthwith. They shall represent
their clients in the respective cases before the
respective courts forthwith;
(ii) If any lawyer deliberately avoids to attend
the court, it shall be presumed that there is
disobedience of this order and he will be faced
with serious consequences including initiation
of proceedings for contempt of court under the
Contempt of Courts Act;
(iii) If any lawyer prevents any other lawyer
from attending the court work, the same would
be considered as disobedience of these
directions and he will be faced with serious
consequences including initiation of proceedings
under the Contempt of Courts Act;
(iv) Each of the judicial officers are directed to
submit a report as to which lawyer has
deliberately abstained from attending the court;
(v) The judicial officers shall also mention the
names of advocates who have prevented other
advocates from entering the court premises or
from conducting their cases in the court;
(vi) Such advocates shall be dealt with seriously
which may even include proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act as well as being
debarred from practice.
3. In spite of that Lawyers are abstaining from court work.
4. Under these circumstances, this Court has no other option but to
issue notice to counsel for the appellants as well as to counsel for the
respondent to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not
initiated against them for violating the order dated 24.03.2023 passed by
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, State Bar
Council of M.P and others (supra).
5. Office is directed to register separate proceedings for the same.
6. Considered I.A. No.15316/2022, an application for condonation of
delay.
7. It is pleaded in the application that the impugned judgment and
decree was passed on 07.02.2019 and thereafter, they handed over the
file to Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate in the month of March, 2019
to file an appeal. In the mother of October, 2022, the appellants went to
the office of their local counsel to verify the progress of the case, then
they came to know that their local counsel Shri Arun Kumar Pandey has
expired. It is mentioned that due to Covid-19, the parties could not
receive an information about the filing of the appeal and thus, it is
prayed that the delay of 1240 days in filing an appeal be condoned.
8. No reply has been filed by the respondent.
9. There was no Covid-19 pandemic in the month of March, 2019.
The lock down was imposed in the month of March, 2020. The
impugned judgment and decree was passed on 07.02.2019. It is
mentioned in the application that the papers were handed over to the
local counsel Shri Arun Kumar Pandey to prefer an appeal. However
from Vakalatnama of the appellants, which was filed before the First
Appellate Court, it appears that Shri Arun Kumar Pandey was not their
counsel. The appellants were being represented by Shri O.P.Shrivastava,
Ms. Tara Verma, and Mahendra Mishra. It is clear from the order sheets
of the Appellate Court that Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate had
never appeared for the appellants. The appellants were being represented
by either Smt. Tara Verma, Advocate or Shri O.P. Shrivastava,
Advocate. Even otherwise, the date of death of Shri Arun Kumar
Pandey, Advocate has not been disclosed in the application.
10. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the ground raised by the appellants that the papers were handed over
to Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate to prefer an appeal is false. Even
otherwise, no explanation has been given by the appellants as to why
they did not keep a track of the appeal either visiting the official website
of the High Court or contacting their local counsel.
11. Under these circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion
that no case is made out for condoning the delay of 1240 days in filing
an appeal.
12. Accordingly, I.A. No.15316/2022 is hereby rejected.
13. As a consequence thereof, the Appeal is also dismissed as barred
by time.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
Shanu
Digitally signed by SHANU
RAIKWAR
Date: 2023.03.27 18:55:59 +05'30'
