Party Can Inquire Case Status From His Counsel, Mere Lack Of Communication With Lawyer Not Ground To Condone Delay In Filing Appeal: Rajasthan HC

While dismissing a challenge to trial court's dismissal of an appeal barred by two and half years, Rajasthan High Court observed that it could not excuse the delay only on the grounds that the petitioner was not informed by his counsel about the order passed by the lower court, when no justification was provided on his failure to ask about the status of his case from his counsel.

The bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg was hearing a revision petition filed by a husband (“petitioner”) against whom order of maintenance was passed in July 2023. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this order in 2025 which was barred by two and half years and hence was dismissed by the trial court on grounds of delay.

It was the case of the petitioner that he was a labourer working outside the State and was not informed about the order of maintenance by his lawyer. And as soon as he got to know about the same, the appeal was filed, and the delay caused was purely bonafide.

After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that provided for condonation of the delay in the event of sufficient cause and opined that the purpose of limiting rules was not to destroy rights of parties but to prevent dilatory tactics.

It was observed that “sufficient cause” under Section 5 had to be interpreted liberally to promote substantial justice where the appellant was not held accountable for any negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides.

Furthermore, the Court referred to the Supreme Court case of Pathupati Subba Reddy (Died) by L.Rs. & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) in which it was held that Section 5 could not be interpreted liberally wherein negligence, inaction or lack of bona fide was involved. It was further opined in this case that even though limitation may harshly affected parties' rights, it had to be applied with all its rigour.

The Court further referred to the coordinate bench decision of the Rajasthan High Court viz. Harish & Anr. v Rajasthan Board of Muslim waqf that dealt with an identical case and held that,

“while levelling an allegation against the counsel in not informing the petitioner regarding the order passed by the Estate Officer, there is no explanation set out as to why the petitioners did not contact the counsel for the period of 5½ years. A litigant should be vigilant enough and should keep himself informed about the pending proceedings and therefore, the bald assertions on the part of the petitioner that the counsel did not inform about the disposal of the matter, cannot be considered to be a plausible explanation for condonation of inordinate delay in filing the petition.”

In this background, the Court observed that the petitioner had failed to provide any legitimate explanation behind the delay since there was no justification provided on his failure to ask his counsel about the status of the case.

“It is noteworthy that no justification for the petitioner's failure to ask the status of his case from the counsel is provided. Hence, the applicant's bald claims that his lawyer did not inform him about the order, cannot be taken seriously as a reasonable justification for the excessive delay in filing the appeal.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Title: Saurendra v Bhugani & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 100

Click Here To Read/Download Order