Litigant Cannot Be Permitted To Throw Entire Blame On Advocate’s Head & Seek Relief: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Bombay High Court setting aside the order condoning the delay of over 4 years and observed that the litigant should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.
The Petition, before the Apex Court, arose from the Order of the Bombay High Court allowing the petition filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1) thereby setting aside the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge condoning the delay of 4 1⁄2 years in filing the written statement.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan asserted, “We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the delay condoned.”
AOR Rajat Joseph represented the Petitioner.
The facts of the case suggested that the defendants failed to file their written statement in time and at the stage to file a written statement was closed. Thereafter permission of the Trial Court was prayed for to file the written statement after a period of over 4½ years. The Trial Court permitted the defendants to file their written statement. Thereafter the plaintiff’s appeal was allowed by the High Court and the Trial Court’s Order was set aside.
“We find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court”, the Bench said while also adding, “The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.”
Dismissing the Petition, the Bench emphasized, “Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance.”
Cause Title:Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke [Neutral Citation- 2024 INSC 902]
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Rajat Joseph, Advocates Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Vijay Kari Singh, Kaustubh D. Kadasne,
