1.      Learned counsel for the petitioner present.  None is present for the respondent despite service.   The respondent be proceeded ex parte.

2.      The case of the petitioner was dismissed in default vide order dated 26.2.2013 rendered by the State Commission.  The impugned order runs as follows:

“None for the appellant

Shri Vikas Rai, learned counsel for the respondent.

None was present for the appellant on 10.1.2012, 30.3.2012, 18.5.2012, 6.10.2012 as well.  This shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing this appeal.  The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.”

3.      Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that their counsel did not inform the petitioner about the pendency of this case.  The petitioner came to know about this case when the opposite party came to get the sale deed executed.  This clearly shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner.

4.      Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner did not lodge any complaint against the advocate before the Bar Council of India.  The bizzare conduct of the petitioner is difficult to fathom and the advocate is so negligent as he could not appear before the State Commission on 10.1.2012, 30.3.2012, 18.5.2012, 6.10.2012.  It is well settled that it is the duty of the litigant to post himself about the next date of hearing by going to the office of his advocate.  He has already wasted more than a year.   It has become a fashion to level charges against the advocate, that too, in his absence.  Learned counsel for the petitioner

-3-

has invited our attention towards the authority in the case of Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another 1981 (2) SCC 788 where it was held that it was the negligence on the part of the advocate and the costs of Rs.200/- were ordered to be recovered from the advocate himself. 

5.      In the interest of justice and in view of the above mentioned authority, we hereby set aside the order of the fora below, restore the case before the State Commission, subject to payment of Rs.25000/- as costs, which be paid to the opposite party through demand draft directly.  The State Commission is directed to summon him and the amount be paid through demand draft to the opposite party in the presence of State Commission.  The State Commission is further directed to decide the case on merits.

6.      The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 31.10.2013.

7.      The revision petition stands disposed of.