The Delhi High Court has emphasized that litigants cannot entirely absolve themselves of responsibility for tracking the progress of their legal cases after engaging counsel. The court dismissed a writ petition filed by Rahul Mavai, citing an inordinate six-year delay in filing and an unconvincing explanation for the lapse. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta.
Case Background
The case, Rahul Mavai vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.(C) 17440/2024], revolved around a petition challenging an order passed by a tribunal on July 17, 2018. The petitioner, hailing from a socioeconomically weaker background, alleged that his legal counsel had misled him about the case’s status. According to the petitioner, the counsel, practicing locally in Gurgaon, provided false updates and returned an incomplete case file only after heated exchanges in August 2024. This prompted the petitioner to retrieve records from the tribunal and subsequently file the writ petition.
Represented by Advocate Mr. M.K. Gaur, the petitioner argued that he should not suffer due to his previous counsel’s alleged negligence, citing landmark cases like Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshi Lal & Anr. (1981) and Ajit Kumar Singh v. Chiranji Lal (2002). The respondents, represented by Mr. Vinay Yadav, Senior Panel Counsel, along with Mr. Vedansh Anand and other advocates, argued that the delay was inexcusable and prejudiced the case.
Legal Issues
The primary issue before the court was whether the petitioner’s explanation of delay, attributing it to counsel’s negligence, was sufficient to condone the six-year lapse. The case also explored the doctrine of delay and laches, which disallows litigants from seeking extraordinary relief if they approach the court after an unreasonable and unexplained delay.
Court’s Observations
Justice C. Hari Shankar, delivering the opinion for the bench, stressed that litigants must remain proactive in pursuing their cases. The court noted:
“A litigant does not abandon all responsibility to keep track of a matter, once it is entrusted to counsel. It is easy, in such circumstances, to file a complaint before the Bar Council and seek to explain away the delay. We deprecate this.”
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta concurred, underscoring that allegations against counsel must be substantiated with convincing evidence. The court remarked that simply blaming a lawyer for negligence without showing regular follow-ups or due diligence does not absolve a litigant of their duty to ensure timely legal action.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley (2024 SCC OnLine SC 551), which reiterated that delay defeats equity. The judgment noted,
“Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, ‘procrastination is the greatest thief of time.’”
Decision
The court held that the petitioner’s explanation was insufficient to justify the six-year delay, noting that financial hardship and allegations of negligent legal representation were not adequate grounds for condoning the lapse. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without examining the merits of the case.
