Litigant Ought Not To Suffer Merely Because Of Wrong Listing Date Entered In Advocate's Court Diary: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant ought not to suffer merely because a wrong entry or a wrong date is entered in it's Advocate's court diary, thereby precluding his appearance before the Court on the fixed date. Justice Pratibha M Singh however added that the Court or the Tribunal would have to examine as to whether the said wrong entry is merely an excuse or whether it is genuine."Advocates who appear before a court of law usually have the practice of maintaining their court diary. The entries in the same are maintained by court clerks working with advocates. In the said diary, the previous date, the number and name of the case, is entered. Some advocates' offices or court clerks also enter the forum where the case is listed. Once the matter is over, the next date is entered in the diary. In the diary, on the date to which the matter is adjourned, the case name is again entered. In this process, it is usual for a wrong entry to take place, due to inadvertence by the court clerk or counsel," the Court said. It added"Merely because of such a wrong entry or a wrong date being entered, inadvertently, upon an adverse order being passed, the litigant ought not to suffer."The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a workman against the Management. As the workman's counsel could not appear before the Labour Court, the impugned Award dated 4th April, 2016 was passed, dismissing the claim. An application was thereafter filed by the Workman seeking setting aside of the impugned Award which was also dismissed in default for non-prosecution on 14th December, 2016, as the Counsel for the Workman had noted the next date before the Labour Court as 19th December, 2016, instead of 14th December, 2016. Thereafter, an application was moved on 20th December, 2016 i.e., within one week's time, seeking to set aside the order dated 14th December, 2016. The Labour Court, vide order dated 11th September, 2017 disposed of the said application by holding that the Workman was trying to mislead the Labour Court.It was thus the case of the petitioner that Workman had no mala fide intention to mislead the Labour Court, and that his Advocate could not attend the hearing due to a genuine mistake in noting down the next date. He submitted that the Workman ought not to suffer for this default on the part of his Counsel."A perusal of the order sheets of the Labour Court as also the record shows that the Workman is a very poor person and the reason for non- appearance at the initial stage of the proceedings was that the Workman was stated to have been suffering from jaundice in May, 2016. Thereafter, when he returned to Delhi on 11th August, 2016, he was informed of his dismissal," the Court noted. The Court also perused the Advocate's court diary which showed that there were a number number of matters listed on 16th December, 2016 and on 19th December, 2016. "The matter relating to the Petitioner herein is reflected in the advocate's Court Diary to be listed on 19th December, 2016. Thus, the fact that the application seeking setting aside of the impugned Award was wrongly noted to be listed on 19th December, 2016, instead of 14th December, 2016, is established by a perusal of the said Court Diary," the Court said. While the Court said that the advocate must have enquired on 19th December, 2016 and realized that the matter was dealt with the court on 14th itself and adverse orders were passed, it added that the fact that the application was filed on the next day itself proved the bona fides of the advocate.In view of the aforesaid reasons, the Court was of the view that the present case was a fit case for restoration of the claim petition before the Labour Court."The Labour Court shall now proceed with the said claim petition, in accordance with law. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 7th February, 2022," it directed. Case Title: BHIKAM MASIH v. M/S TRIG DETECTIVES PVT. LTD.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 6Click Here To Read Order

Litigant Ought Not To Suffer Merely Because Of Wrong Listing Date Entered In Advocate's Court Diary: Delhi High Court

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags