RAJNEESH KUMAR & ANR.versusVED PRAKASH

         [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 approach in condoning the delay.
6.   The respondent herein being dissatisfied by the order passed by the
     first appellate court condoning the delay challenged the same before
     the High Court. The High Court allowed the civil revision application
     by which the order passed by the appellate court condoning the
     delay of 534 days came to be quashed and set aside.
7.   In such circumstances, the petitioners are here before this Court
     with the present petitions.
8.   We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
9.   The High Court in its impugned order observed as under:-
          “14. Thus, it is evidently clear that the respondents were
          not only fully aware of the pendency of the counter-claim
          on 22.3.2012, yet this fact has been deliberately and
          willfully concealed and not stated in the application for
          restoration. In fact the entire blame has been put on the
          earlier counsel that had been representing them.
                             x         x          x          x
          22. Since the respondents had not approached the Court
          with clean hands and have rather suppressed. the material
          facts, that too, deliberately and intentionally regarding
          knowledge of pendency of the counter-claim atleast on
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                         1469

                 Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash


          22.03.2012 and thereby tried to gain an unfair advantage
          from the Court, that too, by casting serious allegations on
          the previous counsel(s), no indulgence much less discretion
          could have been exercised in favour of the respondents/
          plaintiffs, that too, for condoning the delay of more than
          534 days.”
10. It appears that the entire blame has been thrown on the head of
    the advocate who was appearing for the petitioners in the trial court.
    We have 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 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. 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.
11. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court
    in the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. & M.C. Private Ltd. reported in
    (1993) 2 SCC 185, wherein this Court observed as under:-
          “8.The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and
          statements, made within the limits of authority given to him,
          are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party
          who engage him. It is true that in certain situations, the
          court may, in the interest of justice, set aside a dismissal
          order or an ex parte decree notwithstanding the negligence
          and/or misdemeanour of the advocate where it finds that
          the client was an innocent litigant but there is no such
          absolute rule that a party can disown its advocate at any
          time and seek relief. No such absolute immunity can be
          recognized. Such an absolute rule would make the working
          of the system extremely difficult. The observations made in
          Rafiq [AIR 1981 SC 1400] must not be understood as an
          absolute proposition. As we have mentioned hereinabove,
          this was an on-going suit posted for final hearing after a
          lapse of seven years of its institution. It was not a second
          appeal filed by a villager residing away from the city, where
1470                                                       [2024] 11 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


          the court is located. The defendant is also not a rustic
          ignorant villager but a private limited company with its
          head office at Calcutta itself and managed by educated
          businessmen who know where their interest lies. It is
          evident that when their applications were not deposed of
          before taking up the suit for final hearing they felt piqued
          and refused to appear before the court. May be, it was part
          of their delaying tactics as alleged by the plaintiff. Maybe
          not. But one thing is clear they chose to non-cooperate
          with the court. Having adopted such a stand towards the
          court, the defendant has no right to ask its indulgence.
          Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to
          make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature
          or significance of the proceedings is a theory which cannot
          be accepted and ought not to have been accepted.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)
12. As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this
    Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State
    Insurance Corporation (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held
    as under:-
          “The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure
          that actions are commenced within a particular period,
          firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary
          as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the
          claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle
          that law does not assist a person who is inactive and
          sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged
          or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in
          a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of
          this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non
          dermientibus, jura sub-veniunt (the laws give help to those
          who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore,
          the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a
          person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable
          time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or
          fraudulent claims.”
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)
[2024] 11 S.C.R.                                                   1471

                    Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. v. Ved Prakash


13. In view of the aforesaid, we find no error not to speak of any error
    of law in the impugned judgment of the High Court warranting
    interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
    Constitution of India.
14. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Petitions dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan