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.

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 of about four years seven months and twenty two days he is relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur NAFAR Academy and Ors. reported in 2014 (1) PLJR 290 para 14 and 16 is stated as under:-

“14. In B. Madhuri Goud vs. B.Damodar Reddy the Court referring to earlier decisions reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge who had condoned delay of 1236 days as the explanation given in the application for condonation of delay was absolutely fanciful.

16. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are:-

(a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the Courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system.

(b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective.

(c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto.

(d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-challant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”

5. No doubt, sufficient cause is required to be taken note of for the purpose of condonation of delay and so also whether litigant is vigilant or not is required to be examined. Last week Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar and Another vs. Ved Prakash reported in 2024 SCC online SC 3380 while taking note of earlier decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 11 and 12 it is held as under:-

“11. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185, wherein this Court observed as under:-

“8. The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engage him. It is true that in certain situations, the Court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal order or an ex parte decree notwithstanding the negligence and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working