Delhi High Court Rejects 6,290 Days Delay In 1988 Appeal, Says Losing Contact With Lawyer No Ground To Condone Delay
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 6,290 days, or over 17 years, in seeking restoration of an appeal filed in 1988, that was dismissed for non-prosecution in the year. 2002.Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that losing contact with a lawyer is no ground to condone such long delay and that litigant cannot shift the entire responsibility of pursuing the case onto his...
The Delhi High Court has refused to condone a delay of 6,290 days, or over 17 years, in seeking restoration of an appeal filed in 1988, that was dismissed for non-prosecution in the year. 2002.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that losing contact with a lawyer is no ground to condone such long delay and that litigant cannot shift the entire responsibility of pursuing the case onto his former counsel.
The Court observed that the litigant's plea that he had lost contact with his previous counsel for over a decade could not constitute sufficient cause for such an extraordinary delay.
The appeal was admitted in 1988 and was listed for hearing on July 18 and July 25, 2002. Neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
The application seeking restoration was filed on November 24, 2018, and was subsequently re-filed after removal of objections in January 2019.
The litigant attributed the delay primarily to loss of contact with his previous counsel, financial difficulties and lack of notice before the dismissal.
Rejecting the said explanation, the Court observation:
“A litigant bears an independent responsibility to diligently pursue his cause and cannot shift the entire burden onto his erstwhile counsel.”
The Court further observed that the appellant had taken no steps whatsoever for more than 16 years after the dismissal of the appeal.
“Such an astronomical delay of 6,290 days cannot be erased by generic submissions qua personal hardship or breakdown of communication,” the Court said, adding that the applicant's conduct exhibited a “callous attitude” towards prosecuting his legal remedies.
“In the absence of any sufficient cause being shown, no ground is made out to condone the prolonged delay of 6,290 days. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed,” the Court said.
Title: KRISHAN LAL v. INDERJEET SINGH & ANOTHER