The court condoned the delay in filing a second appeal due to counsel's fault, emphasizing that clients should not suffer for their advocate's inaction, reinforced by socio-economic considerations.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the dismissal of Regular Second Appeal No. 202 of 2022 by the High Court of Orissa vide order dated 10.01.2023 on the sole ground of delay of 225 days in preferring such appeal being non-condonable.

3. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Civil Suit bearing C.S. 71 of 2013 filed before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Chatrapur, wherein the appellant had sought declaration as herself being the legally married wife of Late Raj Kishore Sahoo and to further declare respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 are the sons and daughters of Late Raj Kishore Sahoo. The appellant had also sought a declaration that the instant respondents no. 4 and 5 are respectively not the legally married wife and daughter of Late Raj Kishore Sahoo. The appellant’s suit was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 25.07.2016.

4. The appellant preferred first appeal against the dismissal of suit before the Additional District Judge, Chatrapur being RFA No. 31 of 2016, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2021.

5. The appellant preferred a second appeal on 22.08.2022 against judgment dated 11.10.2021 before the High Court, being RSA No. 202 of 2022. Since there was a delay of 225 days in filing the said RSA, the appellant had also filed a detailed application for condonation of delay being I.A. No. 885 of 2022.

6. However, the High Court, vide the impugned order, held that the explanation provided by the appellant for such long delay in presenting the memorandum of Second Appeal is not at all satisfactory so as to say that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Hence, the I.A. No. 885 of 2022 was rejected and consequently, the RSA stood dismissed on ground of delay.

7. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. In I.A. No. 885 of 20222 filed by the appellants before the High Court seeking condonation of delay, it was stated that the appellant was informed by her Counsel sometime in July, 2022 about the dismissal of her first appeal vide order dated 11.10.2021, after which she took steps for filing the RSA which was duly filed on 22.08.2022. It was further stated that the appellant who is a homemaker and a rustic woman could not prefer the appeal in time due to laches on part of her Counsel and the said delay was not deliberate in nature. It was submitted in the said IA as well as contended before us that the appellant should not be made to suffer on account of her Counsel’s fault.

10. 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.

11. We find it relevant to produce here a paragraph from Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another , (1981) 2 SCC 788 a case which had a very similar factual matrix regarding delay due to Counsel’s fault, the following was observed:

“3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer,