1988 (4) TMI 441

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ner the suit was decreed ex parte in a preliminary form on January 18, 1978. On March 2, 1979 the petitioner, through her learned Advocate Sri Sachin Mukherjee, filed an application under O. 9, R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) for setting aside the ex parte decree which was registered as Misc. Case No. 15 of 1979. On July 14, 1979 the petitioner filed another application through the said Advocate with a prayer for drawing up of another preliminary decree by setting aside the ex parte decree earlier passed after taking into consideration the fact that pursuant to a deed of settlement executed by their father on August 8, 1965 she and her sister were entitled to 2/3rd and 1/3rd share respectively in the suit pro....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e preliminary decree and that owing to wrong legal advice of her erstwhile Advocate she had filed misconceived applications and allowed the Misc. Cases to be dismissed. She accordingly prayed for setting aside the order dated June 16, 1984 after reviewing the same. Another application was thereafter filed by her to amend the above application under Section 151 of the Code to include an averment that the Misc. Case No. 15 of 1979 should be restored otherwise she would suffer irreparable loss and injury and a prayer for setting aside the order dated April 25, 1981 dismissing the Misc. Case, The opposite parties contested the application by filing a written objection. In support of her averments in the application the petitioner examined Sri S....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the sworn testimony of the learned Advocate himself who admitted that the steps taken by him were not proper and that the applications were filed out of his own bona fide mistake. On facts therefore we are fully satisfied that the petitioner has been badly let down by the wrong advice given to her by her former Advocate and placed in an unenviable position. 4. From the impugned order we find that the learned Judge appreciated the predicament of the petitioner, but rejected the application solely on the ground that the phrase "sufficient reason" in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code did not include misconception o: fact and/or law of the Advocate and inherent power could not be used to correct the erroneous view of the learned Ad....