Litigant Cannot Reopen Concluded Proceedings After Years Of Delay By Blaming Counsel: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has refused to recall an order dismissing a criminal revision petition as withdrawn, holding that a litigant cannot be permitted to reopen long-pending proceedings merely by attributing lapses to counsel after repeated opportunities have already been exhausted.

Justice Neerja K. Kalson said, "The conduct reflected from the record is not confined to a solitary act on a single date. Rather, the matter remained pending for years together despite repeated opportunities having been granted by this Court. Even after grant of last opportunity and imposition of costs, the matter was not argued. Judicial proceedings cannot be permitted to remain endlessly pending and thereafter reopened merely on the plea that the default was attributable to the counsel."

The petitioner contended that the earlier counsel had withdrawn the petition without specific instructions. It was further argued that repeated adjournments during the pendency of the matter were attributable to the conduct of the counsel, and the petitioner should not suffer for the advocate's lapse.

Reliance was placed on the settled legal principle that a litigant ought not to be penalized for the fault of counsel.

However, upon perusal of the record, the Court noted that the petition had been pending since 2019 and remained undecided for nearly seven years. It observed that repeated adjournments had been sought on behalf of the petitioner over several years.

The Court specifically referred to its earlier order dated September 1, 2025, which recorded that despite multiple opportunities, including a “last opportunity” granted on October 25, 2024, and a further chance on March 17, 2025, arguments were not addressed. Even thereafter, another adjournment was sought, leading the Court to impose costs of ₹5,000 and caution that no further opportunity would be granted.

Despite these clear warnings, the matter was still not argued, ultimately resulting in withdrawal of the petition on March 11, 2026.

Rejecting the plea, the Court acknowledged that in appropriate cases, a litigant should not suffer due to counsel's inadvertent lapse. However, it emphasized that:

“The said principle cannot be stretched to such an extent that a litigant, after permitting proceedings to remain stagnant for years together, is allowed to reopen concluded proceedings merely by attributing everything to the advocate.”

The Court underscored that the conduct in the present case was not confined to a single default, but reflected a consistent pattern of delay over several years.

Highlighting the need to balance substantial justice with procedural discipline, the Court held that judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to remain “endlessly pending” and then be reopened on such grounds.

It observed that once repeated indulgence has been granted and sufficient opportunities have been exhausted, the Court must exercise caution in invoking its discretionary jurisdiction to recall orders.

Finding no sufficient ground to recall the order dated March 11, 2026, the Court dismissed the application.

SXXX V. SXXXXXX