Educated Litigant Must Keep Track Of Litigation, Duty Doesn't End Merely By Signing Lawyer's Fee Cheque: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently said that an educated litigant must keep track of his litigation and that his duty does not end merely by signing the lawyer's fee cheque.

Observing that the Court has to keep in mind the socio-economic and educational status of the litigant, Justice Girish Kathpalia said:

“An educated urban litigant cannot claim same protection of this rule as extended to an uneducated rustic litigant in the sense that where the latter completely banks upon his counsel and fails to keep a track of his litigation, it is understandable, but it is not understandable where the former does so.”

“In case of an educated litigant, his duty does not end merely by signing the fee cheque of the counsel. An educated litigant is expected to keep a track of his litigation,” the Court added.

Justice Kathpalia dismissed an application filed by an NGO- Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch, its President and Secretary seeking condonation of delay of more than one year in filing an appeal challenging the judgment and decree of recovery of money.

While the delay concerned was 562 days as per the appellants, the Registry's stand was that the delay was of 565 days.

Rejecting the application, the Court noted that the only explanation given by the appellants regarding the colossal delay of 565 days in filing of the appeal was that their erstwhile counsel kept them in the dark.

It said that the litigant should not be made to suffer due to the lawyer's fault but that cannot be a blanket rule.

The Court observed that the protection of the said rule which can be extended to an illiterate layperson, cannot be extended to an educated litigant or a corporate entity or the government bodies.

“Merely by engaging a counsel, the litigant cannot claim to be not under a duty to keep track of the case. Most importantly, where the applicant attributing such delay to the professional misconduct of the counsel opts not to take any action against the counsel, his explanation cannot be believed,” the Court said.

It added that it was not a case where the appellants were precluded from filing the appeal in time by circumstances beyond their control and that they ought to have kept track of the money recovery suit pending against them.

The Court concluded that the appellants opted not to track the case and did not ensure that their counsel should address final arguments before the Trial Court.

“The court also cannot ignore that with expiry of period of limitation to file the appeal, and a further time of almost year and a half, a reasonable expectation arose in favour of the present respondent to treat the impugned decree final and binding. It would be a travesty of justice if now the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, pushing the successful litigant through another round of proceedings in appeal,” the Court said.

Title: JAN CHETNA JAGRITI AVOM SHAIKSHANIK VIKAS MANCH & ORS v. SH ANAND RAJ JHAWAR SOLE PROPRIETOR OF M/S RR AGROTECH

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 193

Click here to read order