A
PAPANNA AND ANR. ETC.
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKAAND ORS. ETC.
NOVEMBER l, 1995
B
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.].
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Order 22 Rules 3 & 4-Legal Representatives of one of the many
C parties-Not brought on record-Appeal abates against all since the decree is
conimon and indivisible.
Practice & Procedure :
Advocate on record-Designated as Senior Advocat~rofessional
D duty of counsel to intimate his clients for making alternative aTTangements.
I!! these appeals, notices were issued to the appellants to make
alternative arrangements in place of their counsel being designated as
Senior Advocate, despite the fact that it was no part of the duty of this
Court and it is the professional duty of the counsel concerned. But there
E was no compliance.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : In view of the fact that the decree challenging the validity of
the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Ac11uisition Act being
F
common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand
abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant
have not been brought on record till date. [693-D]
G
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6258-59
of 1983 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.83 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.A. No. 1324-25 of 1982.
P.R. Ramascsh for the Respondent No. 5.
K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents Nos. 1-4.
692
PAPANNAv. STATE
693
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
A
After Mr. KN. Bhat was designated as Senior Advocate, the Registry
had issued noticed to all the appellants to make alternative arrangements
as early as in 1987-88 and the same were served on all the appellants except
appellant No. 2 who was reported to be dead. None has entered ap-
pearance through counsel nor did they appear in person today. As a matter B
of fact, it is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as
Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them
to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on/record.
It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties. However, it has
aheady been done. In view of the fact that the decree challenging the C
validity of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
being common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand
abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant
have not been brought on record till date.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
D
G.N
Appeals dismissed.
Lex