Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 109
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Jitendra Jain, J
Rahul Sambhu Kabade – Appellant
Versus
Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur – Respondent
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4334 OF 2016|FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO.15872 OF 2016|CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1860 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nikhil Adkine, Swaroop Godbole
For the Respondents: J.K. Shah, Namrata Thakur
Litigants must remain vigilant in proceedings and cannot solely blame advocates for delays without evidence or action against them, as such allegations fail to show sufficient cause for condonation.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Litigant cannot attribute negligence to advocate without material evidence or initiating proceedings against advocate - Litigant owes duty to be vigilant of own rights and judicial proceedings and cannot disown advocate to seek relief - (Para 13)
(B) Appellate jurisdiction - Roznama entries - Party and advocate presence on relevant hearing dates along with absence on subsequent dates leading to judgment - Absence of contrary evidence like messages, call records or steps taken regarding adjourned dates cannot justify delay.
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought condonation of 203 days delay in filing first appeal. Reasons cited include non-responsive advocate, discovery of suit decision through court website, decision to pursue appeal after failed review attempt and lost trust in prior counsel. Allegations of advocate negligence made without supporting records or action against the advocate.
Findings of Court:
No sufficient cause established. Roznama shows applicant and advocate present on pre-judgment dates with matter adjourned for final arguments. No evidence of follow-up communication attempts from those dates. Later chats pertain only to review and no records support claims of earlier inaction. Other cited decision distinguished due to absence of advocate blame and acceptance of mistake therein.
Issues: Whether bald allegations of advocate negligence without evidence, party joinder or disciplinary action constitute sufficient cause for delay condonation. Whether prior interim protection orders can be extended years after lapse.
Ratio Decidendi: Blame cannot be placed on advocate without supporting material and opportunity of hearing; litigant vigilance is mandatory and acceptance of unproven reasons would endorse unsubstantiated negligence claims. Result : Civil application for condonation dismissed. Consequently appeal and connected application dismissed. Request for continuation of interim relief rejected due to absence of subsisting stay orders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reasons for delay attributed to advocate negligence (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. conflicting parties' arguments on condonation (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. no supporting evidence for claimed delay reasons (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14) |
| 4. litigants must be vigilant cannot solely blame counsel (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. no sufficient cause delay not condoned (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
Judgment : -
1. Civil Application No.4334 of 2016 is taken out by the applicant/ appellant seeking condonation of delay of 203 days (in the application, the delay is mentioned as 176 days). The learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant to amend the prayer clause forthwith mentioning 203 days. If the prayer clause is not amended forthwith, the application will be dismissed on this ground itself.
2. The reason for the delay of 203 days is mentioned in paragraphs 3 to 16 of the application. Briefly, the reason states that the advocate who was engaged to handle the matter did not attend the matter nor the said advocate responded to various calls made by the applicant. The applicant states that on enquiry with few friends, he came to know from the website of the District Court that the suit is already decided. Thereafter, the applicant approached the advocate who advised him to file a review and on being informed that the review is not maintainable, it was decided to file an appeal to the High Court. The applicants lost trust in the advocate and, therefore, filed the appeal through another advocate. In the civil application allegations are made against the advocate to justify the delay.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Gautam Dham Co-operative Housing Society Limited Vs. Funds and Properties of Parsi Panchayat & Ors., (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3326) in support of his prayer seeking condonation.
4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 states, by pointing out the roznama, that on 20 July 2015 and 29 July 2015, the defendant was present along with his advocate in the Court and since the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was adjourned. The roznama specifically states that the matter was adjourned for final arguments. In the roznama, the next date of 6 August 2015 is also mentioned.
5. On 6 August 2015 and 11 August 2015, the plaintiff, the defendant and their advocates remained absent and, therefore, the matter was fixed on 20 August 2015 for final hearing. On 20 August 2015, the defendant remained absent but the plaintiff and his advocate were present and argued the suit and filed notes of arguments. On 20 August 2015, the judgment was pronounced in open Court and the proceedings were closed.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the reason given in the application cannot be accepted. He further submits that no disciplinary or any other proceedings are initiated against the advocate who according to the applicant is responsible. He further submits that there are allegations made against the advocate without making him a party in the proceedings. He, therefore, submitted that the civil application for condonation of delay be dismissed with costs.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent.
8. The roznama of 20 July 2015 and 29 July 2015 categorically states that the applicant-defendant was present in the Court along with his advocate. On 29 July 2015, the mater was adjourned to 6 August 2015.
9. In the civil application, there is nothing mentioned as to what steps the defendant took to enquire about 6 August 2015 hearing. There is a general statement that the applicant kept on trying to contact the advocate and the advocate was not responding. There is nothing placed on record in support of this submission.
10. The copies of the WhatsApp chats which is annexed to the civil application is of February and March 2016 which deals with review. I failed to understand that if the applicant has annexed WhatsApp chats from February 2016 then what prevented
