Back
P. B. BAJANTHRI, S. B. PD. SINGH
Raju Kumar, Son of Gautam Paswan – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(P.B. Bajanthri, J.)
Reg. I.A. No. 01 of 2022
Heard I.A. No. 01 of 2022.
2. There is delay of about four years seven months and twenty two days. The reasons assigned for the enormous delay of four years and few days are that Mr. Yashraj Bardhan was advocate on record, he is stated to have not informed the appellant. Thereafter, it is learnt that he has taken back the papers from the advocate on record by Mr. Ambika Bhagat who accepted the brief and he did not file present L.P.A. and died on 03.09.2017.
3. If there is inaction on the part of the deceased advocate during the period from 2014 to 2017 and there is no follow up of action on behalf of the appellant to ascertain whether has he taken any steps to file L.P.A. or not and if he slept over the matter for about five years, he cannot blame advocate alone. On the other hand he himself is not vigilant about his case. Therefore, sufficient cause has not been shown so as to condone the enormous delay on behalf of the counsel for the appellant during the intervening period from 2014 to 2017. Even from 2017 to 2019 there is no sufficient cause has been shown.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner to condone the enormous delay
The court held that a litigant must demonstrate vigilance in pursuing their case, and failure to do so can result in the dismissal of applications for condonation of delay.
Litigants must demonstrate diligence in their appeals, as negligence or blame on counsel does not justify condonation of significant delays.
The court emphasized a liberal approach in assessing sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, particularly when the delay is marginal and does not prejudice th....
Litigants must exercise due diligence in legal proceedings; mere negligence of counsel does not justify condoning delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.
Inordinate delay in filing petitions without reasonable explanation can lead to dismissal, emphasizing the importance of promptness in asserting rights under Articles 32 and 226.
A mere claim of Counsel's neglect does not suffice for condonation of delay without establishing sufficient cause; litigants maintain responsibility for timely action.
Appeal – Limitation – Advocate being an officer of Court on disposal of case has duty to apply for certified copy of decree pursuant to drawing up and completing decree and to hand over the same to h....
Inordinate delay, which attracts doctrine of prejudice, warrants strict approach, whereas a delay of short duration or few days, which may not attract doctrine of prejudice, calls for a liberal delin....
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
