Litigants Cannot Throw Entire Blame On Advocate For Delay, Expected To Be Equally Vigilant About Proceedings: SC

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing the special leave petition that arose from an order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court (HC) allowing the Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendant/counter claimant and quashing the order of the District Judge, Shimla condoning the delay of more than 534 days in filing the appeal by the petitioners (original plaintiffs). The two-judge bench of the SC refused to condone a delay of 534 days in filing the appeal on the part of a litigant. It said that the litigants have to be vigilant and careful about their proceedings and can not throw the entire blame on their lawyers if there are delays in the case proceedings. The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “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. 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.” It added, “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.” 

While observing this, the SC bench considered its decisions in Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. and Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation cases. Lastly, the top court concluded, “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.” Therefore, the bench dismissed the petitions. In this case, the petitioners before the SC initially moved the appellate court challenging a civil court’s order in favor of their legal opponent in a civil suit. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in the counterclaim 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 of 534 days in preferring the appeal essentially on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate and the court should adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay. Further, the respondent, in this case, challenged the decision before the HC that allowed the civil revision application by which the order passed by the appellate court condoning the delay of 534 days came to be quashed and set aside.