The Supreme Court upheld a decision of the Bombay High Court setting aside the order condoning the delay of over 4 years and observed that the litigant 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. The Petition, before the Apex Court, arose from the Order of the Bombay High Court allowing the petition filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1) thereby setting aside the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge condoning the delay of 4 1⁄2 years in filing the written statement.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court‘s order that rejected the condonation of a delay exceeding four years in filing a written statement. The Apex Court emphasized that litigants cannot absolve themselves of responsibility by placing the entire blame on their advocates, thus underscoring the importance of vigilance in legal proceedings.
The case stemmed from an appeal filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no. 1) against an order by the Joint Civil Judge that had allowed the defendants to file their written statement after a delay of over 4½ years.
The Bombay High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, a judgment now upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, remarked:
“We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the delay condoned.”
Case Background and Arguments
The petitioner in the Supreme Court was represented by AOR Rajat Joseph. The facts revealed that the defendants had failed to file their written statement within the prescribed time, leading to the closure of the opportunity to do so. Despite this, they sought permission from the Trial Court to file the written statement after a delay of over 4½ years.
The Trial Court granted their request, but this decision was subsequently challenged by the plaintiff in the Bombay High Court.
The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, setting aside the Trial Court’s order. Upholding this judgment, the Supreme Court observed:
“We find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.”
The Bench further stressed:
“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.”
Supreme Court’s Rationale
While dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court laid particular emphasis on the responsibility of litigants to remain vigilant in the conduct of their cases. Addressing the argument that the advocate’s negligence justified the delay, the Bench stated:
“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.”
Key Takeaways
This decision underscores the Supreme Court’s firm stance on judicial accountability. The judgment sends a clear message to litigants to actively engage in their cases and not rely solely on their legal representatives to avoid repercussions of procedural lapses.
By emphasizing the need for vigilance and due diligence, the court has sought to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.
This ruling serves as a reminder that while advocates play a crucial role in legal representation, the ultimate responsibility for the conduct and progression of a case rests with the litigant.
CASE TITLE:
Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke [Neutral Citation- 2024 INSC 902]
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Advocates
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
