Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. – Petitioner
VERSUS
Ved Prakash – Respondents
S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 935-936 of 2021
Decided On : 21-11-2024
Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Period of limitation – Delay of more than 534 days in filing appeal – Entire blame has been thrown on head of Advocate who was appearing for petitioners in trial court – Over a period of time a tendency has been noticed on part of litigants to blame their Lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending proceedings before 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 – Object of statutes of limitation is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims – Order passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 10, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Vide impugned order High Court allowed Civil Revision Application filed by original defendant/counter claimant and thereby quashed and set aside order passed by District Judge, Shimla condoning delay of more than 534 days in filing appeal by petitioners herein (original plaintiffs).
Findings of Court:
No error not to speak of any error of law in impugned judgment of High Court warranting interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of Constitution of India.
Result : Petitions dismissed.
ORDER
1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 935 of 2021 arises from the order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 09.12.2019 in the Civil Revision Application No. 96 of 2019 by which the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendant/counter claimant and thereby quashed and set aside the order passed by the District Judge, Shimla condoning the delay of more than 534 days in filing the appeal by the petitioners herein (original plaintiffs).
2. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2021 arises from the order passed by the High Court in Review Petition No. 5 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020 by which the High Court rejected the review application.
3. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioners herein (original plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the respondent (defendant). The respondent herein had filed counter claim in the said suit. The civil suit came to be dismissed for default and the application for restoration moved by the petitioners herein was also ordered to be dismissed for default. The counter claim of the respondent was allowed vide the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2015 passed in the very same suit.
4. The petitioners herein being dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in the counter claim challenged the same before the first appellate court by way of an appeal. However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days.
5. The first appellate court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring the appeal essentially on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate and the court should adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay.
6. The respondent herein being dissatisfied by the order passed by the first appellate court condoning the delay challenged the same before the High Court. The High Court allowed the civil revision application by which the order passed by the appellate court condoning the delay of 534 days came to be quashed and set aside.
7. In such circumstances, the petitioners are here before this Court with the present petitions.
8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9. The High Court in its impugned order observed as under:-
x x x x
22. Since the respondents had not approached the Court with clean hands and have rather suppressed.
the material facts, that too, deliberately and intentionally regarding knowledge of pendency of the counter-claim at least on 22.03.2012 and thereby tried to gain an unfair advantage from the Court, that too, by casting serious allegations on the previous counsel(s), no indulgence much less discretion could have been exercised in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, that too, for condoning the delay of more than 534 days.”
10. 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.
11. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Salil Dutta v.
Period of limitation – Litigant should not be permitted to throw entire blame on head of Advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.
Unexplained delay cannot be condoned under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The court reinforced that an excessive delay in seeking restoration of a suit cannot be condoned based on vague explanations, as it undermines the principles of the law of limitation.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
Huge delay of 1,633 days in filing Special Leave Petition cannot be condoned.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The court emphasized that delay in filing to set aside an ex parte decree must be justified with valid reasons, and a liberal approach does not permit fanciful explanations.
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
