Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the appellants, seeking condonation of delay of more than one year in filing the appeal to assail the judgment and decree of recovery of money, Girish Kathpalia, J., stated that in case of an educated litigant, his duty did not end merely by signing the fee cheque of the counsel. An educated litigant was expected to keep a track of his litigation. In the present case, the appellants were not illiterate or semi-literate rustic individuals, they were a registered NGO, and its senior functionaries could not be expected to not keep a track of the lis.
The Court stated that it would be a travesty of justice if now the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, pushing the successful litigant through another round of proceedings in appeal. Thus, the Court dismissed the present application.
Background
In the present case, the delay in filing the appeal was explained solely on ground of professional misconduct of the appellants’ previous counsel. It was stated that the delay was neither wilful nor deliberate but was solely caused due to grave professional misconduct and lack of diligence on the part of the previous counsel engaged by the appellants, who failed to inform the appellants regarding the passing of the impugned judgment and decree. Due to this deliberate concealment of material facts, the appellants were completely unaware of the passing of the decree and could not exercise their statutory right to file an appeal within the stipulated time frame.
The appellants contended that for the professional misconduct of their previous counsel, they could not be made to suffer. It was further contended by the appellants that since they were not conversant with the “nitty-gritty” of procedures of law, so they could not be penalised for this delay in filing the appeal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that in the present case, the appellants admitted that no action was initiated by the appellants against their previous counsel for his alleged misconduct. That being so, the Court referred to Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. (P) Ltd., (1993) 2 SCC 185, Moddus Media (P) Ltd. v. Scone Exhibition (P) Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8491, etc., and stated that it was difficult to believe that there was any misconduct on the part of the previous counsel for the appellants, as alleged by them. Besides, in the absence of any action by way of any complaint before the Bar Council concerned, believing such allegation of the appellants qua professional misconduct of their previous counsel would also be tantamount to condemning the previous counsel unheard.
The Court stated that there was no blanket rule that for misconduct of the counsel, the litigant be not made to suffer. The Court had to keep in mind the socio economic and educational status of the litigant. The Court stated that an educated urban litigant could not claim same protection of this rule as extended to an uneducated rustic litigant, who completely banks upon his counsel and failed to keep a track of his litigation.
The Court stated that in case of an educated litigant, his duty did not end merely by signing the fee cheque of the counsel. An educated litigant was expected to keep a track of his litigation. In the present case, the appellants were not illiterate or semi-literate rustic individuals. The appellants were a registered NGO, and its senior functionaries could not be expected to not keep a track of the lis.
The Court stated that it was certainly not a case where the appellants were precluded from filing the appeal in time, by circumstances which were beyond their control. The appellants ought to have kept a track of the money recovery suit pending against them, but they opted not to do so and did not ensure that their counsel should address final arguments before the Trial Court. Even after culmination of the suit into the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants remained sleeping over it.
The Court stated that it was not only the colossal length of delay; it was the unacceptable explanation of the delay, which must be discarded. The Court also could not ignore that with expiry of period of limitation to file the appeal, and a further time of almost year and a half, a reasonable expectation arose in favour of the present respondent to treat the impugned decree final and binding. It would be a travesty of justice if now the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, pushing the successful litigant through another round of proceedings in appeal. Thus, the Court dismissed the present application.
[Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch v. RR Agrotech, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 878, decided on 14-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellants: Mir Adnan Zahoor and Akhil Bharat Kukreja, Advocates.
