Back
Restores Appeal, Says Litigant Should Not Suffer for Counsel's Lapse
Justice Pranjal Das of the has firmly restated that a litigant cannot be made to bear the burden of a counsel's , setting aside orders that had dismissed an appeal for and condoning a 123-day delay in seeking its . The court also directed the petitioner to pay Rs 5,000 in costs to the district legal services authority.
A Land Dispute Derailed by Counsel's Absence
The case arises from a matrimonial dispute turned property fight. Kabak Bhatt and Biki Shapiong, formerly husband and wife, had acquired two plots of land measuring 49,066 sq m and 47,961 sq m at Hollongi under Balijan Circle in Arunachal Pradesh. After separating in 2010, Bhatt claimed he remained in peaceful possession and even obtained Land Possession Certificates in 2018. Shapiong, however, alleged that the certificates were obtained fraudulently, leading the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Balijan to recall and cancel them in .
Matters escalated when the Gaon Bura (village headman) of Hollongi, acting on Shapiong's complaint, passed an order in granting her full ownership of the disputed land. Bhatt challenged this before the , under . The appellate court initially stayed the village authority's order and directed .
But the appeal never got its day in court. On three successive hearings—, , and —Bhatt's counsel remained absent. The court dismissed the appeal for on and vacated the .
The Petitioner’s Explanation and the Courts’ Rejection
Bhatt contended that his previous counsel never informed him of the dismissal. He learned about it only when the respondent began construction activities on the land. He then engaged a new counsel and filed an application (IA No. 07/2025) under to condone the 123-day delay and restore the appeal. The Civil Judge dismissed that application on .
An appeal against that dismissal before the , met the same fate. On , the District Judge upheld the Civil Judge's order, prompting Bhatt to file the present under .
High Court: A Prevails
Justice Das examined the records and the decisions cited, including the 's landmark ruling in . That judgment established that after a litigant engages a lawyer, pays fees, and briefs the counsel, the party cannot be expected to act as a watchdog. The court reproduced the relevant para from Rafiq, which holds that “the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening … nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate.”
Relying also on and , the High Court noted that for non-appearance needs to be shown only for the date on which the occurred, not for previous defaults that were already condoned by the trial court.
The court observed that the impugned order had impermissibly taken into account the prior defaults of the petitioner's counsel. On the crucial date of , the petitioner's explanation—that his counsel was on leave—was satisfactory. The petitioner had also demonstrated that he acted promptly once he learned of the dismissal.
Key Observations
The court underscored the principle that must not be sacrificed on the altar of :
“The decision in Solim Manyu v. Benglum Manyu and N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurty would not come in the way of this revisional court approaching the matter in a justice-oriented manner, keeping in mind the contentions of the petitioner and the principles laid down in the above discussed judgments.”
It further held that the lower appellate court had committed a by relying on the counsel's previous conduct when the application only required a satisfactory explanation for the date of dismissal.
The Final Order
The High Court set aside: - The judgment and order dated of the in First Appeal No. 05/2023, - The order dated dismissing IA No. 07/2025, and - The judgment dated of the in Civil (Misc.) Appeal No. 2 of 2025.
The delay of 123 days was condoned, and the first appeal was restored to file for fresh adjudication. As a condition for the relief, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs 5,000 with the . Both parties are to appear before the on .
Implications
The ruling reaffirms the well-settled position that courts must adopt a when considering applications for and of matters dismissed for . It sends a clear message to trial courts and appellate courts that litigants cannot be made to suffer for the negligence of their counsel, especially when the party has taken prompt steps once the came to light.
