The Bombay High Court has criticised the growing tendency of litigants to blame their advocates for procedural delays without initiating disciplinary action or impleading them as parties, holding that such bald allegations cannot justify condonation of delay.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a ruling on condonation of delay, the Bombay High Court has expressed disapproval of the growing tendency of litigants to blame their advocates for procedural delays without initiating any disciplinary or legal action against them or even impleading them as parties. The Court held that mere allegations of advocate negligence, unsupported by material evidence and without hearing the advocate concerned, cannot constitute “sufficient cause” under the law.
Background of the Case
The applicants had filed Civil Application No. 4334 of 2016 seeking condonation of a 203-day delay in filing a first appeal. The delay was primarily attributed to the alleged negligence of their previous advocate, who was accused of:
- Not attending court hearings
- Failing to respond to phone calls
- Not informing the applicants about the pronouncement of judgment
The applicants claimed that they discovered the adverse judgment only after checking the District Court website, following which they attempted to file a review and later an appeal through a new advocate.
Findings of the Court
Justice Jitendra Jain placed considerable reliance on the roznama (daily court proceedings), which clearly recorded that the applicant–defendant was personally present before the trial court on 20 July 2015 and 29 July 2015 along with his advocate.
The record further showed that on 29 July 2015, the suit was adjourned for final arguments, and the next date of hearing was specifically fixed as 6 August 2015, making it evident that the applicants were aware of the stage of the proceedings.
This contradicted the claim that the applicants were completely unaware of the proceedings.
The Court noted that the applicants had annexed WhatsApp chats only from February and March 2016, which pertained to discussions regarding the filing of a review petition. However, no material was placed on record to show any communication with the advocate during the crucial period of August 2015, when the suit was listed for final hearing and ultimately decided.
Justice Jain observed:
“I failed to understand that if the applicant has annexed WhatsApp chats from February 2016 then what prevented him to annex the WhatsApp chats, if any, from 6 August 2015.”
In one of the most important observations, the Court held:
“It has become regular practice to make allegations against the advocate in such matters of delay without making advocate a party and without taking any action against the advocate.”
The Court emphasised that if litigants genuinely believe their advocate is responsible, they must:
- Initiate appropriate disciplinary or legal proceedings, or
- At the very least, implead the advocate as a party
Accepting such allegations without hearing the advocate would amount to condemning the advocate unheard, which is impermissible.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, reiterating that litigants cannot absolve themselves of responsibility by shifting the entire blame onto their lawyers.
The Supreme Court had held that litigants are expected to remain vigilant about their own cases and cannot seek condonation of long delays merely by alleging advocate negligence.
The Court also rejected other grounds, such as the applicant’s claim of having taken up a job abroad, noting that no supporting documents were placed on record.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed:
- The application for condonation of delay
- The first appeal
- The connected civil application
The Court also refused to continue interim protection to prevent dispossession, noting that:
- The last protection order expired on 16 March 2020
- There was no subsisting stay from 2022 to 2026
Hence, the request to continue interim relief to approach the Supreme Court was rejected.
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates Nikhil Adkine and Swaroop Godbole
Respondents: Advocates JK Shah and Namrata Thakur briefed by RJ Law
Case Title:
Rahul Sambhu Kabade & Anr v. Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur & Ors.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4334 OF 2016
READ JUDGMENT