In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court underscored the imperative for litigants, especially those who are educated, to actively monitor the progress of their legal cases. The court clarified that a litigant's obligation extends beyond merely hiring legal representation and paying fees; they must remain engaged and informed about their case's developments.
Justice Girish Kathpalia articulated that while the judiciary may offer leniency to uneducated or rural litigants who might lack the resources or understanding to track their legal matters, the same consideration cannot be extended to educated individuals. He stated, "An educated urban litigant cannot claim the same protection... In the sense that where the latter completely banks upon his counsel and fails to keep a track of his litigation, it is understandable, but it is not understandable where the former does so."
This pronouncement came during the dismissal of an application by the NGO Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch, along with its President and Secretary. They sought condonation for a delay exceeding one year in filing an appeal against a judgment and decree pertaining to the recovery of money. The appellants attributed the 565-day delay to their previous counsel, alleging they were kept uninformed about the case's status.
The court, however, found this justification insufficient. Justice Kathpalia emphasized that while there is a principle that litigants should not suffer due to their lawyer's shortcomings, this is not an absolute rule. He noted that such protection is more appropriately extended to illiterate individuals who might be entirely dependent on their legal advisors. In contrast, educated litigants are expected to proactively engage with their legal matters. The court observed, "Merely by engaging a counsel, the litigant cannot claim to be not under a duty to keep track of the case."
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the appellants did not take any action against the alleged misconduct of their former counsel, which undermined the credibility of their explanation for the delay. Justice Kathpalia pointed out that the appellants had ample opportunity to monitor the proceedings of the money recovery suit filed against them but chose not to. This lack of diligence, the court concluded, did not warrant the condonation of such a substantial delay.
This ruling serves as a crucial reminder to litigants about the importance of personal involvement in their legal affairs. It reinforces the notion that while legal representation is vital, the ultimate responsibility for the conduct and timely progression of a case rests with the litigant. The judiciary's stance is clear: educated individuals must exercise due diligence and cannot solely rely on their legal counsel to manage all aspects of their litigation.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.