Litigants Can't Blame Lawyers For Their Own Inaction, Must Track Proceedings: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that litigants cannot shift the entire responsibility for their non-appearance in court proceedings onto their lawyers and must remain vigilant about the status of their cases, even if their counsel is allegedly negligent.

A division bench comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary emphasised that litigants must make efforts to ascertain the status of pending proceedings, particularly when they are unable to contact their advocates.

While doing so, the Court noted that online case-status facilities, court orders and judgments are available to help them keep track of their matters.

“In today's age of the internet where the online case status, video- conferencing facilities for appearance in Courts and uploading of order sheets and judgments on the website of the Courts have been provided for the convenience of litigants, the litigants are in a better position to follow up their case,” the Court said.

The Bench made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a defendant seeking to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree passed against him in a commercial recovery suit.

The Court held that the defendant's claim that his counsel had stopped responding to his calls was vague and lacked material particulars to constitute “sufficient cause” for his non-appearance under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

Further, the Bench noted that the appellant had failed to specify when he attempted to contact his counsel or explain why he did not approach her in person when she allegedly stopped responding to his calls.

It further pointed out that there was no explanation for the absence of both the appellant and his counsel on November 23, 2024, when final arguments were heard, or on November 26, 2024, when the ex-parte judgment was pronounced.

The Bench added that the appellant failed to explain why he did not approach the Trial Court to ascertain the status of the matter when he was allegedly unable to contact his counsel.

While acknowledging that the expression “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC must be interpreted in light of the facts and circumstances of each case with the objective of ensuring substantial justice, the Bench found that the appellant failed to demonstrate that he honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the matter was taken up for hearing or that he had made reasonable efforts to do so.

“The facts of the present case also have to be viewed from the stand point of the proceedings being before the Commercial Court, where the trial under the Act of 2015 are required to be conducted in a time bound framework,” the Court said.

“There is no satisfactory explanation whatsoever provided by the appellant for him to be unable to have approached the Trial Court for determining the status of his case where he was not able to get in touch with his Counsel. As already observed, there is no explanation particularly given for the absence of the appellant and his counsel on 23.11.2024 and 26.11.2024,” it concluded.

Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court's order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree, the Court dismissed the appeal.