In a defining ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s decision to deny the condonation of a delay that exceeded four years for filing a written statement, highlighting that litigants cannot shift the entire responsibility onto their advocates to seek relief.
The origins of the case trace back to an appeal by the original plaintiff against a leniency shown by the Joint Civil Judge, which permitted the defendants to submit their written statement after a 4½ year delay. The Bombay High Court reversed this leniency, a stance that the Supreme Court has now affirmed.
The Division Bench, composed of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, expressed concern over a troubling trend: “We have observed a growing tendency among litigants to place the entire blame on their advocates. We’ve even encountered instances where advocates, citing personal difficulties, have supported their clients in seeking delays.”
In the Supreme Court, the petitioner was represented by AOR Rajat Joseph. The narrative unfolded with the defendants failing to submit their written statement in the stipulated timeframe, effectively closing their window to do so. Despite this, they petitioned the Trial Court for permission to submit the statement belatedly, a request initially granted but later overturned by the Bombay High Court.
The High Court’s decision found favor with the Supreme Court, which noted, “We find no error, let alone a legal one, in the judgment passed by the High Court.”
The Bench underscored the need for litigants to take ownership of their cases, stating, “A litigant should not be allowed to shift all blame onto their advocate and disown them to seek relief.” Dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court emphasized the duty of litigants to remain alert to their rights and the proceedings they initiate.
Addressing the argument of advocate negligence, the Bench remarked, “Even if we consider that the lawyer was negligent, that alone does not justify condoning a significant delay. The litigant must vigilantly manage his rights and the court proceedings.”
