Litigants must exercise due diligence in legal proceedings; mere negligence of counsel does not justify condoning delays in filing appeals under the Limitation Act.

Judgment :

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.)

1) Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2024, the application for condonation of delay in filing the instant appeal.

2) The award was passed by the learned Additional Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Kabirdham (C.G.) on 28.10.2023 and this appeal was preferred on 05.09.2024. There is a delay of 213 days in filing the instant appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, it is stated that the file was handed to a local counsel for filing the appeal but the said Advocate did not file the same. Thereafter, the appellant approached the present counsel on 04.09.2024, who filed the appeal on 05.09.2024.

3) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the file was handed over to another Advocate and he failed to file the appeal, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within limitation.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents would oppose. They would submit that the appellant has not explained the delay properly.

5) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6) In the application for condonation of delay, the appellant has not mentioned the date of award; the date when he applied for the certified copy; the date when the certified copy was delivered; when he approached the earlier counsel and; when the file was taken back and thus proper explanation is missing in the application.

7) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajneesh Kumar and another Vs. Ved Prakash, 2024 Livelaw (SC) 912 held that litigants who did not exercise due care and vigilance cannot throw the entire blame on their advocates. The relevant para 10 and 11 are quoted below:-

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. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. reported in (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 of the system extremely di2cult. The observations made in Rafiq [AIR 1981 SC 1400] must not be understood as an absolute proposition. As we have mentioned hereinabove, this was an on-going suit posted for final hearing after a lapse of seven years of its institution. It was not a second appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where the court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic ignorant villager but a private limited company with its head o2ce at Calcutta itself and managed by educated businessmen who know where their interest lies. It is evident that when their applications were not deposed of before taking up the suit for final hearing they felt piqued and refused