The Delhi High Court, in a strongly worded decision, dismissed an appeal filed by Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch and its office bearers, ruling that litigants cannot blame their lawyers for delay in filing legal appeals. Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that “An educated litigant is expected to keep a track of his litigation. In case of an educated litigant, his duty does not end merely by signing the fee cheque of the counsel.”
Background of the Case
The appellants, a registered Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) along with its President and Secretary, had sought condonation of a 565-day delay in filing their appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) against a judgment and decree of money recovery in favor of Sh. Anand Raj Jhawar, Sole Proprietor of M/s RR Agrotech. The NGO claimed that their previous counsel had failed to inform them about the judgment, thereby preventing them from filing a timely appeal.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was whether professional misconduct of an erstwhile lawyer constitutes a “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone an extraordinary delay of more than one and a half years in filing an appeal. The court also examined whether an NGO and its functionaries, being educated and aware, could solely rely on their lawyer without keeping track of their case status.
Court’s Decision and Key Observations
Justice Kathpalia dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that “It is not only the colossal length of delay; it is the unacceptable explanation of the delay, which must be discarded.” The court made the following key observations:
No Action Against the Lawyer: The appellants did not file any complaint against their previous counsel, which undermined their argument of professional misconduct.
Duty of Litigants: The court reiterated that litigants must actively monitor their cases, and simply hiring a lawyer does not absolve them of responsibility.
Precedents on Delay Condonation: The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments, including Ramlal vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, which held that after expiry of the limitation period, the opposing party gains a right to treat the judgment as final.
Negligence Not Excused: Citing Balwant Singh vs Jagdish Singh, (2010) 8 SCC 685, the court underscored that mere negligence or inaction cannot be a valid ground for condoning delay.
Unfairness to the Successful Litigant: The court noted that the respondent had a reasonable expectation that the decree would remain final, and condoning the delay would unfairly push them into another round of litigation.
