Delay – Condonation of delay – The petitioners-plaintiffs herein were dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in the counter claim and challenged the same before the first appellate court by way of an appeal – However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days – First Appellate Court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring appeal on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate – Respondent-defendant challenged the same before the High Court – The High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court condoning delay of 534 days:
Held: The entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court – This Court has 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 – Even if it is assumed 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 – 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 – There is no error of law in the impugned judgment of the High Court warranting interference. [Paras 10, 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.