The Chhattisgarh High Court held that litigants should not suffer due to their lawyers’ negligence in conducting cases. Citing precedent, it emphasized that parties cannot be expected to monitor proceedings constantly and should not be penalised for counsel’s default.
The Chhattisgarh High Court on Wednesday stressed that litigants should not be penalised for their lawyers’ negligence.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru made the remark in a matter where parties embroiled in a land dispute were unable to contest proceedings because their counsel failed to inform them properly about trial court hearings.
After the trial court decided the case against them in their absence, the litigants instructed their lawyer to file an appeal. Due to miscommunication, however, the lawyer merely forwarded the file to another advocate and the appeal was not lodged within the prescribed period.
When the appeal was later filed together with an application to condone the delay, the court refused to condone the lapse and dismissed the appeal as time‑barred. The disappointed litigants then approached the High Court seeking relief.
In its April 8 ruling, the High Court underscored that courts should take a liberal stance where judgments are rendered against a party because of their lawyer’s default.
The Court observed,
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr. reported in (1981) AIR (SC) 1400 has held that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault, negligence or inaction of his counsel. Once a party has engaged an advocate and entrusted him with the conduct of the case, he is entitled to presume that the advocate will properly represent him before the Court, and the litigant cannot be expected to constantly monitor the proceedings or act as a watchdog over the advocate. Therefore, the innocent party should not be penalized for the default of his counsel,”
The High Court therefore condoned the delays in this matter and directed the trial court to decide the pending applications on their merits.
Background: The dispute arose from a civil suit lodged by Kamal Prasad Kasar concerning agricultural land in Kirwai and Darchura villages in Baloda Bazar district. Kasar alleged that Jairam Dubey had forged a power of attorney and used it to sell the land to multiple purchasers.
The buyers (defendants) denied the claim, asserting that the power of attorney was genuine, that the sales were completed after full payment, and that Dubey acted as the authorised attorney in registered transactions.
After filing written statements, the defendants did not participate at the evidence stage, and the trial court proceeded ex parte and ultimately ruled that the power of attorney was forged, rendering the sale deeds void.
The defendants say they were unaware of the trial hearings and only learned of the ex parte decree when the local tahsildar issued a notice about land mutation. On obtaining a certified copy of the judgment, they instructed their counsel to challenge it; but allegedly due to the lawyer’s negligence the file was merely forwarded to another advocate and no appeal was filed.
The defendants then sought relief under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC (to set aside an ex parte decree) and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (to condone delay). Those applications were dismissed, leading to the present High Court challenge, after which the High Court has directed the trial court to reconsider.
Representation: Advocates T.K. Jha and Parth Kumar Jha appeared for the appellants (defendants). Advocate Bharat Lal Dembra represented plaintiff Kamal Prashad Kasar. Deputy Government Advocate Anand Gupta and Panel Lawyer Malay Jain appeared for the State.
Case Title: Tirith Sahu Vs Kamal Prasad Kasar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE