1. Appeal against refusal to condone delay in filing an appeal — misrepresentation by counsel regarding the filing status of the matter. (Para 2 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 911
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Venkataswami : S.S.M.Quadri
Radha Krishna Rai
Versus
Allahabad Bank
Case No. : 4683 of 1999
Important Points
Misrepresentation by a counsel, leading a litigant to believe an appeal has been filed when it has not, constitutes "sufficient cause" for condoning a significant delay in filing, provided the litigant was otherwise vigilant.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Condonation of Delay - Sufficient cause - Misrepresentation by counsel - Delay of 1418 days in preferring an appeal - Appellant kept under the impression that the appeal had already been filed by the counsel - Upon engaging another advocate, it was discovered that no appeal had been filed - Though the period of delay is unduly long, the circumstances are unusual - A party who is a victim of misrepresentation of facts by their own advocate and was kept under the impression that the appeal is pending cannot be said to have been non-vigilant in prosecuting the appeal - Such cause is sufficient to justify condoning the delay. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed with a petition to condone a delay of 1418 days. The appellant had been led to believe by the previous counsel that the appeal had already been filed. After receiving unsatisfactory information regarding the progress of the case, a new advocate was engaged, who discovered that no appeal had been filed before the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant was a victim of misrepresentation by his own advocate. Despite the length of the delay, the unusual circumstances and the appellant's vigilance in eventually discovering the lapse justified the condonation of the delay.
Issues: Whether the misrepresentation by a counsel constitutes sufficient cause for condoning an extensive delay in filing an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a litigant is misled by their counsel into believing that a legal proceeding has been initiated, and such misrepresentation is the cause of the delay, it constitutes sufficient cause for condonation, provided the litigant acted with reasonable vigilance.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed with a petition to condone a delay of 1418 days. The appellant had been led to believe by the previous counsel that the appeal had already been filed. After receiving unsatisfactory information regarding the progress of the case, a new advocate was engaged, who discovered that no appeal had been filed before the Division Bench.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant was a victim of misrepresentation by his own advocate. Despite the length of the delay, the unusual circumstances and the appellant's vigilance in eventually discovering the lapse justified the condonation of the delay.
Issues: Whether the misrepresentation by a counsel constitutes sufficient cause for condoning an extensive delay in filing an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a litigant is misled by their counsel into believing that a legal proceeding has been initiated, and such misrepresentation is the cause of the delay, it constitutes sufficient cause for condonation, provided the litigant acted with reasonable vigilance.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
limitation
-
condonation of delay
- misrepresentation by counsel (Para 6)
-
condonation of delay
-
limitation
Table of Contents
2. Condonation of delay — contention that the appellant was a victim of misrepresentation by his own counsel. (Para 3 )
3. Misrepresentation by counsel regarding the filing of an appeal constitutes sufficient cause for condonation, provided the party remained vigilant. (Para 6 )
4. Misrepresentation by an advocate regarding the filing of an appeal constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay. (Para 6 )
5. Delay condoned — matter remitted to the High Court for disposal of the appeal in accordance with law. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Does misrepresentation by a counsel justify the condonation of a long delay in filing an appeal?
Yes, if the party was kept under the impression that the appeal was pending and was otherwise vigilant in prosecuting the matter, misrepresentation by an advocate constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay. (Para 6 )
7. What constitutes sufficient cause for condoning an unduly long delay in filing an appeal?
Unusual circumstances, such as a party being a victim of misrepresentation of facts by their own advocate regarding the status of the filing, can be considered sufficient cause. (Para 6 )
8. Is the vigilance of the party a factor in condoning delay caused by counsel's misrepresentation?
Yes, the court considers whether the party has been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal when determining if the cause shown for the delay is sufficient. (Para 6 )
(1) LEAVE is granted limited to the question of the condonation of delay of 1418 days in preferring the appeal.
(2) THIS appeal arises from the order dated 6/8/1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta declining to condone the delay of 1418 days in preferring the appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal on 6/8/1998.
(3) DR Rajeev Dhawan, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been victim of misrepresentation by his own counsel and in the circumstances the High Court ought to have condoned the delay.
(4) HEARD learned counsel for the respondent.
(5) IT is a case where the appellant was kept under the impression that the appeal had already been filed. When the appellant tried to contact his advocate Mr M.M.Verma, to know about the progress of his case, he did not receive any satisfactory information. The appellant found that the progress of the matter was not satisfactory, he engaged another advocate, Mrs Heera Jain. On enquiry by Mrs Heera Jain, Advocate it came to her knowledge that no appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench. Then she filed an appeal before the Division Bench with a petition to condone the delay in the circumstances mentioned above.
(6) ON the facts, we are of the view that though the period of delay is unduly long, the circumstances are also very unusual. The petitioner has been a victim of misrepresentation of facts by his own advocate and was kept under the impression that the appeal is pending before the High Court whereas no appeal was in fact filed by the advocate. It cannot be said that the appellant has not been vigilant in prosecuting the appeal. The cause shown by the petitioner is sufficient to justify condoning the delay in filing the appeal. We accordingly condone the delay and remit the matter to the High Court for disposing of the appeal in accordance with law.
(7) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
