LexRAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR. versus VED PRAKASH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1466 : 2024 INSC 891 Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash (S.L.P. (Civil) No(s). 935-936 of 2021 ) 21 November 2024 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the litigant can be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay in preferring appeal. Headnotes† Delay – Condonation of delay – The petitioners-plaintiffs herein were dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in the counter claim and challenged the same before the first appellate court by way of an appeal – However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days – First Appellate Court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring appeal on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate – Respondent-defendant challenged the same before the High Court – The High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Court condoning delay of 534 days: Held: The entire blame has been thrown on the head of the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court – This Court has noticed over a period of time a tendency on the part of the litigants to blame their lawyers of negligence and carelessness in attending the proceedings before the court – Even if it is assumed 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 – 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 – There is no error of law in the impugned judgment of the High Court warranting interference. [Paras 10, 13] [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1467 Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash Case Law Cited Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd [1993] 1 SCR 794 : (1993) 2 SCC 185; Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation [1972] 1 SCR 867 : (1971) 2 SCC 860 – relied on. List of Keywords Delay; Condonation of delay; Appeal time barred; Negligence of advocate; Litigant. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: S.L.P. (Civil) No(s). 935-936 of 2021 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2019 and 10.07.2020 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in CR No. 96 of 2019 and RP No. 5 of 2020, respectively. Appearances for Parties Aditya Dhawan, Mrs. Kiran Dhawan, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Advs. for the Petitioners. Rajesh Gupta, Mrs. Harpreet Singh, Sumit R. Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 935 of 2021 arises from the order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated 09.12.2019 in the Civil Revision Application No. 96 of 2019 by which the High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendant/counter claimant and thereby quashed and set aside the order passed by the District Judge, Shimla condoning the delay of more than 534 days in filing the appeal by the petitioners herein (original plaintiffs). 2. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 936 of 2021 arises from the order passed by the High Court in Review Petition No. 5 of 2020 dated 10.07.2020 by which the High Court rejected the review application. 1468 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 3. It appears from the materials on record that the petitioners herein (original plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the respondent (defendant). The respondent herein had filed counter claim in the said suit. The civil suit came to be dismissed for default and the application for restoration moved by the petitioners herein was also ordered to be dismissed for default. The counter claim of the respondent was allowed vide the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2015 passed in the very same suit. 4. The petitioners herein being dissatisfied with the ex parte order passed in the counter claim challenged the same before the first appellate court by way of an appeal. However, the appeal was time barred by 534 days. 5. The first appellate court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring the appeal essentially on the ground that the litigant should not suffer on account of negligence on the part of the advocate and the court should adopt a liberal appro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.