Litigants must remain vigilant about their legal proceedings and cannot solely blame their counsel for lack of information; failure to show reasonable cause for delay in seeking relief results in rejection of applications.

Order :

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.51/2024 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, CPC as filed on behalf of applicant-defendant No.1, stood rejected.

2. The case of the applicant is that in the suit for partition and permanent injunction as preferred on behalf of the respondents- plaintiffs, after service of notice on her, she engaged a lawyer who had assured her that she would be informed about the case proceedings as and when required. However, she received no information from the counsel and it was only in the year 2021 when the notice for final decree was served on her that she came to know about the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2024 passed ex-parte against her.

3. It is further submitted that at the first instance, she preferred S.B. Civil First Appeal No.221/2022 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2014 but then withdrew the same with a liberty to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC. In pursuance to the liberty granted in the said First Appeal, the present application in question under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC was filed by the applicant on 12.12.2023.

4. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the application specifically observed that in the suit proceedings, power by counsel representing applicant-defendant No.1 was filed on 29.03.2012 and thereafter on the subsequent dates, he prayed for time to file the written statement. However, no written statement was filed and finally on 02.03.2013 when none appeared on behalf of applicant-defendant No.1, order to proceed ex-parte against her was passed. From 02.03.2013 till 10.12.2014, the matter then proceeded on for evidence and ultimately, the judgment and decree was passed on 15.12.2014. Till that date, no application whatsoever was filed on behalf of applicant-defendant No.1. The present application was filed after a period of 9 years of passing of the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2014 and that too without stating any reasonable cause or explanation as to why the said delay was caused.

5. In the specific opinion of this Court, the findings as recorded by the learned Trial Court do not deserve any interference, the same being totally in consonance with law.

6. It is not the case of applicant-defendant No.1 that she was not served. It is evident that due service was made on her and she was even represented by a counsel who was granted several opportunities to file written statement. However, subsequently as none appeared on behalf of defendant No.1, the Court directed to proceed ex-parte.

7. In the opinion of this Court, no reasonable cause as to why applicant-defendant No.1 could not present herself on the date when the Court directed to proceed ex-parte was shown/pleaded by the applicant and hence, the Court rightly rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC.

8. So far as the ground raised by the applicant to the extent that the counsel did not inform her of the further proceedings is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that even the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Salil Dutta vs. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd. ; (1993) 2 SCC 185 observed that 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 difficult.

The Court further held that, putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.

9. In view of the overall analysis and above observations, no case for interference is made out and the present appeal is hence, dis