Negligence Or Carelessness Of Lawyer By Itself Can’t Be Ground To Condone Inordinate Delay; Litigant Owes Duty To Be Vigilant: SC
The Supreme Court ruled that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and even if it is assumed that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay.
The Special Leave Petition arose from an order passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court allowing a Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendant/counter claimant and quashing the order passed by the District Judge, Shimla condoning the delay of more than 534 days in filing the appeal by the petitioners (original plaintiffs).
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan asserted, “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.”
Advocate Aditya Dhawan represented the Petitioner while Advocate Rajesh Gupta represented the Respondent.
In this matter, the petitioners herein (original plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the respondent (defendant). The respondent filed counterclaim in the said suit. The civil suit came to be dismissed for default and the application for restoration moved by the petitioners was also ordered to be dismissed for default. The counter claim of the respondent was allowed vide the judgment passed in the very same suit.
The petitioners being dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in the counter claim challenged the same before the first appellate court by way of an appeal. However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days. The first appellate court condoned the delay in preferring the appeal. The respondent’s appeal before the High Court was allowed. Hence, the petitioners approached the Apex Court.
On a perusal of the impugned Order of the High Court, the Bench noticed that the entire blame had been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court.
“We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court”, it noted.
The Bench further held, “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.”
Reliance was also placed by the Court upon its judgments in Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185 & Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860.
Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Bench emphasized, “In view of the aforesaid, we find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned judgment of the High Court warranting interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
Cause Title: Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. V. Ved Prakash [Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 891]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Aditya Dhawan, Kiran Dhawan, AOR Chander Shekhar Ashri
Respondent: Advocates Rajesh Gupta, Harpreet Singh, AOR Sumit R. Sharma
