Bombay High Court Deprecates Practise Of Litigants Blaming Advocates For Delay In Proceedings Without Material
The Bombay High Court while refusing to condone the delay of 203 days in filing a first appeal challenging a trial court's order, deprecated the practice of litigants blaming advocates for the delay without making the said advocate a party and without initiating any action against the said lawyer. Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain noted while hearing a civil application seeking to condone...
The Bombay High Court while refusing to condone the delay of 203 days in filing a first appeal challenging a trial court's order, deprecated the practice of litigants blaming advocates for the delay without making the said advocate a party and without initiating any action against the said lawyer.
Single-judge Justice Jitendra Jain noted while hearing a civil application seeking to condone a delay of 203 days to challenge the civil court's order, the party made allegations against its advocate (engaged before the civil court). The Applicants accused the advocate engaged to defend them in the suit before a Pune Court, did not pursue their case properly and did not answer their calls etc. It was alleged that the Applicants learnt from the District Court website that the suit against them was decided and that the advocate never informed them about the same.
Further, the Applicants, contended that their advocate suggested them to file a review petition which was also dismissed as it was not maintainable. Thus, they changed their advocate and then filed an appeal before the High Court in 2016 and this was after a delay of 203 days.
Noting the facts brought before him, Justice Jain criticised the Applicants for making 'bald' allegations against their advocate, especially in his absence and without furnishing any material to back their claims.
"It has become regular practice to make allegations against the advocate in such matters of delay without making advocate a party and without taking any action against the advocate. If according to the litigants, the advocate is responsible for the mess created then appropriate proceedings should have been taken or at least he should be made a party," the judge observed in the order passed on January 19.
The judge noted that the Applicants, failed to furnish any call data records, or proper WhatsApp Chats, to substantiate their claims that their advocate did not respond to their 'multiple' calls and messages.
On a specific query raised by the Court, the advocate (now appearing for the Applicants) stated that no proceedings are initiated against the advocate engaged for defending the Applicants before the civil court.
"On one hand, in the civil application, the Applicants blame the advocate and on the other hand, they do not take any proceedings against the advocate but make allegations in the civil application without making him a party. Therefore, based on the records placed before me, the reasons given of attributing negligence on the part of the advocate cannot be accepted moreso without hearing the advocate and without there being any material in support of whatever is stated in the application. Acceptance of reasons would amount to accepting negligence of the advocate without any material and without hearing the advocate," the judge said while dismissing the Applicants' case.
With these observations, the judge dismissed the civil application for condonation of delay and also the first appeal.
Appearance:
Advocates Nikhil Adkine and Swaroop Godbole appeared for the Applicants.
Advocates JK Shah and Namrata Thakur instructed by R J Law represented the Respondents.
Case Title: Rahul Sambhu Kabade vs Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur (Civil Application 4334 of 2016)