Litigant Has To Be Vigilant, Can't Throw Entire Blame On Advocate For Delay & Negligence : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that litigants, who did not exercise due care and vigilance, cannot throw the entire blame on their advocates. The Court also flagged the rising tendency on the part of litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending court proceedings.The Court made this pertinent observation while refusing to condone the delay of 534 days in filing...
The Supreme Court has observed that litigants, who did not exercise due care and vigilance, cannot throw the entire blame on their advocates. The Court also flagged the rising tendency on the part of litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending court proceedings.
The Court made this pertinent observation while refusing to condone the delay of 534 days in filing an appeal. The petition under Article 136 of the Constitution was filed against the refusal of the High Court to condone the delay. The party blamed the delay on the part of the advocate.
Disapproving this approach, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan observed :
"It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court. We have noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court. 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. 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."
The bench cited the judgment in Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd (1993) 2 SCC 185, which held that "there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief."
"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 which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted,” the Court had observed in Salil Dutta.
Case : Rajneesh Kumar and another v. Ved Prakash
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 912
Click here to read the judgment