Party Can't Blame Lawyer For Its Own Negligence Without Citing Any Proof: Rajasthan HC Upholds Dismissal Of Suit For Non-Appearance
While upholding rejection of an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC owing to the law of limitation, Rajasthan High Court held that a party could not be permitted to blame the lawyers for their negligence without there being any proof of the same.Order 9, Rule 9 CPC lays down the right of a party, whose suit was dismissed for default in appearance, to apply for setting aside the...
While upholding rejection of an application filed under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC owing to the law of limitation, Rajasthan High Court held that a party could not be permitted to blame the lawyers for their negligence without there being any proof of the same.
Order 9, Rule 9 CPC lays down the right of a party, whose suit was dismissed for default in appearance, to apply for setting aside the dismissal.
Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a challenge to the order of the Trial Court wherein the appellant's application to set aside dismissal of their suit was rejected. This application was rejected by the Trial Court in light of the law of limitation.
It was the case of the appellants that they were not aware of the dismissal order passed by the civil court. This was because they had not gotten their files back from their former counsel, and had never instructed another counsel, who actually appeared on their behalf, to do so.
The high court then said, "In the specific opinion of this Court, the findings as recorded by the learned Trial Court are totally in consonance with law as well as the material available on record. As observed by the learned Trial Court, a party cannot be permitted to blame the lawyers for his/her negligence without there being any proof of the same".
After hearing the contentions, the high court agreed with the trial court's decision which had relied upon a Madras High Court decision in Shankerlal Patwari vs. Jagannath Mahaprabhu & Ors. I.A., wherein it was held that,“It is very easy to change lawyer and to put blame on the earlier lawyer for his/her negligence, but the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the surrounding circumstances, eventualities and most importantly, the conducts of the party before it marches on to believe the allegations leveled by the party against his advocate as a gospel truth.”
The Court highlighted that it was evident that the former counsel of the appellant had submitted before the Trial Court that he had handed over the files back to the appellants and hence had no further instructions. Furthermore, on the same date, another counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants.
Furthermore, it was highlighted that in the present case, such claim by the appellants could not be correct since it was evident that this lawyer was representing them in criminal proceedings too.
It further said:
"Further, it cannot be presumed that any lawyer would ipso facto put in appearance on behalf of any party without being instructed. Further, the allegations have been made by the plaintiffs against two counsels without serving any notice on them and without any complaint being filed against them with the Bar Council. Had the averment made by the plaintiffs been correct, the first step they would have taken was to file a complaint against the counsels with the Bar Council".
The Court further highlighted that allegations were made against both the counsel without impleading them or making any complaints against them before the Bar Council which would have been the first step if the appellants were telling the truth.
In this background, it was held that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the Trial Court and accordingly, the appeal was rejected.
Title: Smt. Shakuntala & Anr. v Smt. Pallavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 147