Many Litigants Socio-Economically Backward, Shouldn't Suffer Due To Advocate's Fault : Supreme Court On Approach In Delay Condonation

The Supreme Court recently observed that though courts have to be cautious while condoning delays of long duration, in cases where the delay can be attributed to the advocate, balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative. It highlighted that the socio-economic background of litigants who approach the courts for justice should be kept in mind.

“We are aware of the caution that needs to be exercised in matters relating to condonation of delay of longer durations. However, it must be noted that balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative when it comes to such matters, especially given the socio-economic background of a large number of India's population who approach these doors of justice as litigants.”

The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta made these observations while condoning the delay of 225 days in filing a second appeal before the High Court. Essentially, the present appellant had filed a Civil Suit, among others, seeking a declaration, as herself being the legally married wife of one (late) Raj Kishore Sahoo. The suit having been dismissed, she filed a first appeal. Since the same was also dismissed, she approached the High Court in a second appeal.

Pertinently, there was a delay in filing the same, thus, she had also filed an application for condonation of delay. In the application, she explained that there was a delay on her advocate's part in informing her about the delay. Thus, she could not prefer the appeal in time and the said delay was not deliberate in nature. However, finding this explanation as not satisfactory, the High Court refused to condone the delay. Against this background, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

At the outset, the Court made the above-mentioned observations and relied upon Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another., (1981) 2 SCC 788. In this case, the Court had categorically stated that an innocent party cannot be made to suffer injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Building on this, the Court observed:

“Even though the above-quoted case law is from the year 1981, we cannot deny the fact that the ground reality of a considerable proportion of litigants being completely dependent on their counsel remains the same, especially in regions with lower economic and educational prowess.”

In view of this, the Court observed that once the appellant became aware of the dismissal, she exhibited haste and filed the second appeal. Thus, finding the reason for the delay as sufficiently explained, the Court allowed the appeal and condoned the delay.

While restoring the matter before the High Court, the Court requested it to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv.

Respondent: Mr. Rutwik Panda, AOR Ms. Anshu Malik, Adv. Ms. Nikhar Berry, Adv.

Case Name: KUMARI SAHU vs. BHUBANANANDA SAHU., Diary No. - 41995/2024

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 165

Click here to read/ download the order