Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VINOD GOEL, J.
MODDUS MEDIA PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
M/s. SCONE EXHIBITION PVT. LTD. - Respondent
RFA 497/2017
Decided On : 18-05-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. J.P.N. Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, & Mr. I.M. Singh, Advocate.
The duty of the litigant to be vigilant and pursue the case diligently, and the consequences of negligence in legal proceedings.
Headnote:
Condonation of Delay - Limitation Act, 1963, Code of Civil Procedure - Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure - [Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure] - The court allowed the condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal based on the reasons stated in the application. The appellant's negligence in pursuing the case and failure to be vigilant about the judicial proceedings were highlighted. The court emphasized that the litigant cannot blame the advocate for their own negligence and lack of diligence in pursuing the case. The court cited legal principles emphasizing the duty of the litigant to be vigilant and pursue the case diligently, and the consequences of negligence in legal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, citing negligence of their counsel as the reason for the delay. The court highlighted the appellant's lack of vigilance in pursuing the case and emphasized the duty of the litigant to be vigilant about judicial proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's negligence and failure to be vigilant about the judicial proceedings were the primary reasons for the delay. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the litigant cannot blame the advocate for their own negligence and lack of diligence in pursuing the case.
Issues: The primary issue was the condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, based on the appellant's claim of negligence by their counsel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellant's lack of vigilance and negligence in pursuing the case, emphasizing the duty of the litigant to be vigilant about judicial proceedings and the consequences of negligence in legal proceedings.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, highlighting the appellant's negligence and lack of diligence in pursuing the case.
VINOD GOEL, J.
CM No. 18654/2017 (for condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal)
This is an application for condonation of 101 days’ delay in re-filing the appeal. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
The application is disposed of.
CM No. 18652/2017 (for condonation of delay in filing the appeal)
1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for condonation of 400 days’ delay in filing the appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-04 (in short ‘ADJ’), Saket Courts, New Delhi in Civil Suit No. 113/2014.
2. It is pleaded that their counsel Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate, having registration no. D-2060 of 2006, resident of B-62, Ram Dutt Enclave, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and chamber no. 853, C/o Shri Shashi Kumar Shukla, Dwarka Court Complex, New Delhi, has stopped attending the proceedings w.e.f. 10.11.2014. Their counsel assured them that there would not be any problem and the case would go in their favour.
3. During the pendency of the suit, the Authorized Representative/Managing Director (in short ‘AR’) of the appellant/defendant company Sh. Pravesh Kumar Mishra talked to the counsel several times. Their counsel informed him that he was taking care of the matter. It is further alleged that after passing of the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2015, their counsel informed them that civil suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff company has been dismissed by the court and there is no necessity to be panicked and they requested their lawyer to provide copies of documents and the court order. It is further alleged that in the end of the year 2015, its AR again requested the counsel to give him copies of all the papers/documents and the counsel promised to supply them but despite assurance he did not adhere his promise. From the end of the year 2015 till September, 2016 the AR of the appellant/defendant company requested the lawyer several times to give him copies of documents and papers in order to know the factual state of affairs of the suit. Inspite of their several requests and reminder, their counsel did not pay any heed.
4. It is further pleaded that on 20.09.2016, the General Manager of the respondent/plaintiff company Mr. Pillai along with one court official visited them to seize the properties and at that time the AR of the appellant/defendant company was in Jaipur. Immediately thereafter they contacted the counsel, who told him that he would call him back in 10 minutes and thereafter neither he called them nor attended their several telephonic calls. He sent several SMSs/Whatsapp messages dated 01.02.2016, 04.02.2016, 20.09.2016, 23.09.2016, 10.10.2016, 11.10.2016 and 22.10.2016, but of no avail. It is alleged that their new counsel inspected the file of the case on 17.10.2016 and they moved an application under Order XXI Rule 26 of CPC before the Executing Court. They also lodged a complaint against previous counsel Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate to the Bar Council of India on 05.11.2016. They applied for obtaining certified copies of all the documents and order-sheets on 16.11.2016, which were supplied on 23.12.2016.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that the counsel of the appellant/company has been negligent in not attending the court proceedings and not informing them about the progress of the case and for the negligence of the lawyer, the appellant company should not be made to suffer and the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and perused the record.
7. It was a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff on 23.09.2011. The appellant/defendant company filed an application for leave to defend the suit on 24.02.2012. The learned ADJ granted le
