ALOK SPICES VS STATE OF KERALA
1995 P T D 202
[205 I T R 415]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.
R. M. Sahai and A.S. Anand, JJ
ALOK SPICES
Versus
STATE OF KERALA
Civil Appeals Nos. 5033 and 5034 of 1993, decided on 13/09/1993.
(Appeals by special leave from the order, dated June 1, 1990 of the Kerala High Court in C.M.P. Nos. 1611 and 1612 of 1989 in T. R. C. No. 169 of 1989.
Supreme Court---
----Practice---High Court---Tax revision case---Hearing---Counsel permitted to retire from case at last moment---Court to ensure notice given to party.
Where at the time when a tax revision case comes up for hearing before the High Court, counsel for a party seeks to retire from the case at the last moment, it would be proper for the High Court to ensure that counsel has earlier given notice to the party.
On the day when a sales tax revision case was listed for hearing before the High Court, counsel for the party reported "no instructions" and the matter was adjourned to the next day showing the name of the party in the cause list as appearing in person. When, on the next day the party did not-appear the High Court passed an order dismissing the case for, default. The party applied for recalling the order of dismissal but the High Court rejected the application. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal for default of appearance, and observing that the ends of justice would be met if the party had one more opportunity of being heard, remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal afresh.
C.N. Srekumar for Appellant.
M.A. Firoz for Respondent.
ORDER
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Leave granted.
The Tax Revision Case No. 169 of 1989, before the High Court of Kerala came to be dismissed for default on January 25, 1990. On the previous day when the case was listed learned counsel for the appellant reported "no instructions" and the matter was adjourned to the next day, i.e. January 25 , 1990, directing that the appellant's name be shown in the cause list as appearing in person.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that when a learned counsel appearing for a party is permitted to retire from a case, the Court should ensure that the counsel had given intimation of his intention so to do, so that the party is enabled to make alternative arrangement. In the present case, it is submitted, learned counsel had not done so and no papers were filed by the counsel in the Court indicating that he had issued any such advance notice to the client of his intention to retire from the case.
While we do not propose to express any opinion as to the circumstances in which the Court should ensure intimation by counsel to the client of his intention to retire from the case, however, it appears that at the stage of proceedings where the persona: presence of the party in the Court is not normally expected---such as the stage of final arguments in a suit or the arguments in appeal---other than the stag, say of evidence where the party's presence is normally expected, it might, perhaps, be proper to ensure that learned counsel who seeks to retire from the case at the very last moment had earlier given notice to the client.
It is on this ground that the appellant later moved the Court for recalling the earlier order of dismissal and to afford to it an opportunity of being heard. This prayer was rejected by the High Court by its order dated June 1, 1990. The appellant has come up here against that order.
We are of the -opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant has one more opportunity of being heard. We did not understand Sri Firoz, learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala, to oppose this prayer of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the order, dated June 1, 1990, of the High Court is set aside and Tax Revision Case No. 169 of 1989 is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
The appeal are disposed of accordingly.
M. B.A./291/T.F. Order accordingly.