Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke – Respondent
Petition For Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 27824 of 2024 (Arising out of Diary No. 25784 of 2024)
Decided On : 22-11-2024
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VIII Rule 1 – Written statement – Limitation period – Condonation of delay – As defendants failed to file their written statement in time stage to file written statement was closed – Thereafter permission of Trial Court was prayed for to file written statement after a period of over 4½ years – Trial Court permitted defendants to file their written statement – Plaintiff being dissatisfied with same challenged order passed by Trial Court permitting defendants to file written statement after a period of 4½ years – High Court allowed petition and set aside order passed by trial court – No error in impugned Judgment passed by High Court – Even if concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about judicial proceedings pending in court initiated at his instance – Litigant should not be permitted to throw entire blame on head of Advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief – Petition dismissed. (Paras 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Instant petition arises from Order passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition by which High Court allowed petition filed by original plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) and thereby set aside order passed by Joint Civil Judge, condoning delay of 4½ years in filing written statement. Petitioners herein are original defendants and respondent no.1 herein is original plaintiff.
Findings of Court:
Over a period of time growing tendency on part of litigants in throwing entire blame on head of Advocate. Not only this, there are cases where concerned Advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) saying that he was unable to attend proceedings due to some personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating litigant to get delay condoned.
Result : Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. This petition arises from the Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.15056 of 2019 dated 12th April, 2024 by which the High Court allowed the petition filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) and thereby set aside the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhed condoning the delay of 4½ years in filing the written statement.
3. The petitioners herein are the original defendants and respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff.
4. It appears from the materials on record that as the defendants failed to file their written statement in time the stage to file written statement was closed. Thereafter permission of the Trial Court was prayed for to file the written statement after a period of over 4½ years. The Trial Court permitted the defendants to file their written statement. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the same challenged the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the defendants to file written statement after a period of 4½ years. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the trial court.
5. We find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
6. We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the delay condoned.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Litigant should not be permitted to throw entire blame on head of Advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.
The court may condone delay in filing documents if there are genuine reasons, such as the petitioner's young age, difficulties in understanding legal procedures, and the complex nature of the issues ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities, and in deserving cases, delay in filing pleadings can be condoned subject....
The court ruled that a party's right to file a written statement should not be denied due to delay, provided costs are imposed, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit for filing a written statement under the Civil Procedure Code should be treated as directory, and the court should balance the ....
The court emphasized the need to consider the circumstances cumulatively, recognized the petitioner's reliance on legal aid and the advice of her advocate, and allowed the application for condonation....
Delay in filing the written statement can be condoned in deserving cases, subject to compensatory costs, and disputes should be resolved on merits rather than technicalities.
Written Statement – Once appellant had already filed written statement to un-amended plaint in which certain formal issues were raised later on, stand taken by appellant in written statement already ....
Substantial justice prevails over technicalities; delay in filing Written Statement within 120 days can be condoned if justified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
