[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1318 : 2024 INSC 902
Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors.
v.
Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke
(SLP (Civil) No. 27824 of 2024)
22 November 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order
passed by Trial Court wherein, Trial Court condoned the delay of
4½ Years for filing of written statement.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether a party may be allowed to file
written statement with a delay of 4½ Years:
Held: The Court has noticed that the growing tendency on the
part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of
the advocate for the delay – Even if the Court assumes that the
advocate was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a
ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a
duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally
vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated
at his instance – The litigant should not be permitted to throw the
entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him
at any time and seek relief – The High Court was correct in setting
aside the Trial Court’s order – Therefore, the petition fails and is
dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8]
List of Acts
Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Condonation of delay; Inordinate delay in filing of written statement;
Throwing blame of delay on the head of advocate.
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
1319
Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27824 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2024 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in WP No. 15056 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Rajat Joseph, Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Vijay Kari Singh, Kaustubh
D. Kadasne, Advs. for the Petitioners
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.
Delay condoned.
2.
This petition arises from the Order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.15056
of 2019 dated 12th April, 2024 by which the High Court allowed the
petition filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) and
thereby set aside the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Jamkhed condoning the delay of 4½ years in filing the
written statement.
3.
The petitioners herein are the original defendants and respondent
no.1 herein is the original plaintiff.
4.
It appears from the materials on record that as the defendants failed
to file their written statement in time the stage to file written statement
was closed. Thereafter permission of the Trial Court was prayed for
to file the written statement after a period of over 4½ years. The
Trial Court permitted the defendants to file their written statement.
The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the same challenged the order
passed by the Trial Court permitting the defendants to file written
statement after a period of 4½ years. The High Court allowed the
petition and set aside the order passed by the trial court.
5.
We find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned
judgment passed by the High Court.
1320
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6.
We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on
the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of
the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the
concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s)
saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some
personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the
delay condoned.
7.
Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was
careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone
long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant
of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the
judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance.
8.
The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire
blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any
time and seek relief.
9.
In view of the aforesaid, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Petition dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)
Lex