Click the Play button to listen to article

The Meghalaya High Court has held that the inability or illness of a lawyer, by itself, cannot constitute sufficient ground for condoning a long and inordinate delay in filing an appeal, emphasising that litigants are equally duty-bound to remain vigilant about their rights and the judicial proceedings initiated by them.

Setting aside an order condoning a delay of 215 days, the Court observed that the entire period of delay must be satisfactorily explained and that the blame for prolonged inaction cannot be shifted entirely onto counsel.

Justice B. Bhattacharjee remarked that: “Inability of lawyer, by itself, cannot be a ground for condoning long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and the judicial proceedings initiated at his instance.” 

Background:

The respondents had instituted Title Suit No. 10 of 2022 before the Subordinate District Council Court, Shillong, seeking declaration of their right, title and interest over a plot of land at Wahlakhiat. An injunction application filed in the suit was disposed of on June 9, 2023, with the parties being directed to maintain status quo. 

Subsequently, after the petitioners alleged violation of the status quo order, the Trial Court passed further directions on January 30, 2024. The respondents challenged the order by filing an appeal on September 3, 2024, along with an application seeking condonation of 215 days' delay, attributing the delay to the illness of their advocate. The District Council Court condoned the delay, prompting the petitioners to approach the Meghalaya High Court

The Court held that the inability or lapses of counsel cannot automatically constitute sufficient cause for condoning a long and inordinate delay. A litigant is equally expected to remain vigilant about his rights and the proceedings initiated by him. 

The Court noted that the delay of 215 days was nearly seven months and therefore required proper scrutiny. The Appellate Court had condoned the entire delay without adequately examining the Trial Court record or the circumstances relied upon by the respondents. 

The High Court found that the respondents continued to be represented before the Trial Court after the January 30, 2024 order and participated in the proceedings until September 3, 2024. A list of witnesses was also filed under the signature of their appointed advocate on June 7, 2024. Thus, the plea that the respondents were unaware of the relevant order could not be accepted. 

The Appellate Court ought to have examined the veracity of the plea concerning the advocate's illness and scrutinised the medical documents. The High Court noted that there was no material showing that the advocate was bedridden or completely incapacitated throughout the period of delay.

The Court held that the respondents' silence for nearly seven months, particularly when they themselves had instituted the title suit and were participating in the proceedings, demonstrated “gross negligence, deliberate inaction and casual indifference.”

Consequently, the High Court set aside and quashed the order condoning the 215-day delay and also quashed the Misc. Civil Appeal pending before the District Council Court. The revision petition was accordingly allowed. 

Case Name: Jriang Singh v/s Smti.Saihunlang Phannuh

Case No.: CRP No.30 of 2025

Date of Decision: 02.09.2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order


Tags: