The obligation of a litigant to remain informed about their case supersedes the negligence attributed to their counsel.

JUDGMENT :

G. S. AHLUWALIA, J.

Heard on I.A. No. 5504/2025, an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal.

2. Although this Court was inclined to issue notice, but it is submitted by counsel for appellants that appellants have suffered judgment and decree dated 29.11.2017, but they came to know about the outcome of suit only when execution proceedings were initiated. It is further submitted that even their local counsel had expired, therefore, they could not get the information about the dismissal of their suit, and thus, it is submitted that there is sufficient cause for not filing this appeal within the period of limitation.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for appellants.

4. This appeal is barred by 2699 days. Since appellants were trying to put the entire burden onto the shoulders of their local counsel, accordingly, counsel for appellants was directed to point out the date of death of local counsel.

5. It is fairly conceded that neither the date of death of local counsel is neither mentioned in the application, nor appellants are aware of the date of death of their local counsel. It is fairly conceded by counsel for appellants that even appellants did not appear before the Trial Court also.

6. Thus, it is clear that contention of appellants that, on account of death of their local counsel, they could not get any information about the outcome of the suit, is nothing but an afterthought. Even the appellants had not participated in the trial, except by filing written statement and engaging their counsel. Furthermore, the litigant cannot put the entire burden onto the shoulders of the counsel, and it is the duty of the litigant also to keep track of his case.

7. Appellants are the residents of Gormi, District Bhind, whereas suit was also decided by District Judge, Bhind. Village - Gormi is hardly 35 km away from the district headquarters of District Bhind. Thus, appellants did not keep track of their case in spite of the fact that they were residing at a distance of only 35 km from the place where the trial was pending. Furthermore, nowadays, when the most advanced modes of conveyance are available, appellants could have enquired about the status of their case from their counsel on mobile phone, even that was not done. They could have checked the status of the suit on the website of the District Court, even that was not done.

8. Delhi High Court in the case of Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch and Others Vs. Anand Raj Jhawar Sole Proprietor of M/S RR Agrotech, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Del 878, has held as under:-

"5. As mentioned above, the only explanation advanced by the appellants with regard to the colossal delay of 565 days in filing the appeal is that their erstwhile counsel kept them in dark. This explanation needs to be tested on the anvil of the judicially sanctified parameters under Section 5 of the Limitation Act .

5.1 As regards Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the undisputed propositions of law as culled out of various judicial precedents are as follows. Where an applicant is able to satisfy the court that he was precluded from filing the appeal or application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI CPC from circumstances beyond his control, the court has discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal etc. Like any other discretion, the discretion under Section 5 of the Act also must be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind the principles evolved across time. One of those principles evolved across time is that the sufficiency of cause set up by the applicant under Section 5 of the Act must be construed liberally in favour of the applicant. Unless no explanation for delay is submitted or the explanation furnished is wholly unacceptable, the court must liberally condone the delay, if third party rights had not become embedded during the interregnum. It is not the length of delay