Litigant Needs To Be Vigilant, Can’t Put Entire Blame On Advocate To Get Delay Condoned: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court recently rapped an Appellant-company for their lack of vigilance in conducting a suit for recovery of money, and their subsequent conduct in blaming the Counsel for the delay in filing an Appeal.

“The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted,” Justice Vinod Goel observed.

The Court was hearing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of delay of 400 days in filing an appeal against an August, 2015 judgment passed by the Additional District Judge.

The Applicant, Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. had contended that their counsel, Mr. Pradeep Kumar had stopped attending the proceedings from November, 2014, but had assured them that the ruling would be in their favour. Moddus had now blamed the counsel for not having obtained a copy of the order in time, and for the delay in filing the appeal. It alleged that the counsel had been negligent, and pleaded for condition of the resultant delay.

Justice Goel, however, rapped the litigants for placing the blame entirely on the Counsel, and observed, “The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what different frivolous pleas/defences being taken by his counsel for adjournments is bound to suffer. If the litigant does not turn up to obtain the copies of judgment and orders of the court so as to find out what orders are passed by the court is liable to bear the consequences.”

The Court opined that Moddus was not “serious at all” regarding the litigation, as it had at its disposal other remedies such as taking services of another lawyer or appearing in person. It further noted discrepancies in the allegations leveled against the Counsel before the Court, when compared with the complaint addressed to the Bar Council of India. The Court thereby concluded that it was the Applicant that was “careless and negligent” in its approach, and refused to condone the delay.