Legal Research, Understanding Impugned Order No Ground To Condone Delay: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that conducting legal research or understanding the impugned order cannot be a ground for condoning the delay.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that if such a ground were to be accepted as a sufficient explanation, it would render the law of limitation and the principles of delay and laches largely otiose.
The Court dismissed an application seeking condonation of delay of 412 days in filing a criminal revision by a petitioner-in-person, a practising advocate.
Vide the impugned order, the Sessions Court had remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for reappreciation of the pre-summoning evidence and for rehearing the arguments on the point of summoning the accused persons.
The petitioner argued that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. He contended that there is no prescribed limitation period for filing a petition under Section 482 of CrPC.
It was also submitted that the delay occurred because he had difficulty understanding the impugned order and undertook legal research.
Dismissing the application, Justice Sharma said that the application filed by the petitioner was conspicuously silent with respect to the steps taken by him during the long intervening period of more than one year after the passing of the impugned order.
The Court said there was no disclosure of any specific dates, events, or circumstances explaining the cause of delay and as to why the petitioner could not approach the High Court within a reasonable time.
“The explanation that the petitioner was engaged in understanding the impugned order and conducting legal research in itself cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of about one year, especially when the petitioner himself is a practising advocate,” the Court said.
It added that legal research or consultation with other lawyers, even by a practising lawyer is a routine exercise undertaken by a self represented litigant and advocates alike, in case, one is not able to understand the order passed by a trial Court which is to be challenged in a higher Court.
“Not being able to understand a judicial order by a self represented litigant, who wants to challenge the order before a higher Court or by a counsel who may receive a brief on behalf of a client cannot be treated as a ground to justify an inordinate delay in availing the remedy,” the Court said.
The judge also said that if the petitioner genuinely faced difficulty in understanding the impugned order or the legal position, nothing prevented him from seeking assistance from another legal practitioner or taking appropriate legal advice at the relevant time.
“In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if such explanations were to be readily accepted, the requirement of showing “sufficient cause” for delay would lose its meaning as every litigant or lawyer will take this ground that he was unable to understand the judicial order and remained busy in understanding the order and conducting legal research for more than one year,” the judge said.
Consequently, the Court also proceeded to dismiss the plea, being barred by delay and laches.
Title: AJIT KUMAR GOLA v. STATE (GNCTD) AND ORS