Skip to content

Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Encyclopedia & Legal Research

Afghanistan Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Antigua & Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia & Herzegovina Botswana Brazil British V. Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Carrib. Netherlands Cayman Island Chile China Colombia Congo DRC Congo Republic Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czechia Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El alvador Estonia Ethiopia Fiji Finland France French Polyn Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran ​Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritius Mexico Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Morocco Mozambique Myanmar/Burma Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russia Rwanda Saint Lucia St Vincent & Grenadines Samoa Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Somalia South Africa South Korea Spain Sri Lanka St. Kitts & Nevis Sudan Suriname Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand Togo Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UAE U.S. Virgin Islands Uganda Ukraine UK United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vatican City Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia

  • Home
    • SITE UPDATES
  • Constitutions
  • Dictionary
  • Law Exam
  • Pleading
  • Index
  • Notifications
  • Indian Law
  • Articles
  • Home
  • 2019
  • October
  • 18
  • Dismissal for default of Advocate
  • Judicial Dictionary

Dismissal for default of Advocate

2 min read

© Advocatetanmoy Law Library

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
image_printPrint

Dismissal for default for non-appearance of Advocate

Advocate has no right to remain absent from Court when case of his client comes up for hearing—He is duty bound to attend the case in Court or to make an alternative arrangement—Non-appearance in Court without ‘sufficient cause’ cannot be excused—Such absence is not only unfair to client of advocate but also unfair and discourteous to Court and can never be countenanced.

Even though counsel for appellant was not present, it would have been appropriate, had the High Court granted an opportunity to counsel for appellant to make his submissions by adjourning the matter—Orders passed by High Court dismissing second appeal as also dismissing recall application set aside—Matter remanded to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

It is true that in the instant case, the appeal before the High Court was not an Appeal from Original Decree (First Appeal), but an Appeal from Appellate Decree (Second Appeal). But Rule 1 of Order XLII which deals with Appeals from Appellate Decrees (Second Appeals) lays down procedure and expressly states that the Rules of Order XLI shall apply so far as may be to Appeals from Appellate Decrees. Prima facie, therefore, it appears that once an appeal is admitted and is placed for hearing i.e. hearing on merits, it can be dismissed for default but cannot be decided on merits in absence of appellant or his advocate.


Secretary, Deptt. of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Another Vs Raghu Raj [AIR 2009 SC 514]

image_printPrint

Related

Continue Reading

Previous: Pre-Constitution law made by a competent authority: effect of
Next: Thika tenant

Latest

  • Interpretation NO.748  [ Same-Sex Marriage Case ]-Judicial Yunan-24/05/2017
  • Fake letters of St Paul to Seneca and fake letters of Seneca to St Paul (1863)
  • পতিতার আত্মচরিত – কুমারী শ্রীমতী মানদা দেবী প্রণীত (Autobiography of a prostitute by Manada Devi-1929)
  • U.S strategy towards sub-saharan Africa-08/08/2022
  • Epistle of Epicurus to Herodotus (260BCE)

CONSTITUTION IPC CRPC CPC EVIDENCE DV POCSO IT IP TP JUVENILE CONTRACT SPECIFIC RELIEF CONSUMER ARBITRATION COMPANY LIMITATION FAMILY LAWS POLLUTION CONTROL BANKING INSURANCE

DOCUMENTS GLOSSARIES JUDGMENTS

  • E-Books 2022  More Documents

Search Google

  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • HISTORY
  • PHILOSOPHY
  • RELIGION
  • ENVIRONMENT
  • MEDICAL
  • Contact Us
  • About
  • Disclaimers
  • RSS
  • Privacy Policy
Encyclopedia & Legal Research-Database Support.... Copyright © by Advocatetanmoy.