Litigants Can't Plead Ignorance When Judgments Are Uploaded Online: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Restore Suit Dismissed For Default

The Gujarat High Court upheld a trial court order which refused to condone delay of 14 months and 15 days to restore a civil suit which was dismissed for default, observing that litigants cannot evade responsibility by blaming their advocates claiming ignorance of court orders uploaded online in the digital era. Emphasizing the duty of litigants to remain vigilant about their own cases, Justice Devan M Desai observed:“…blaming learned advocate by a litigant without any evidence / base is nothing but shirking from the responsibilities to remain present in the case and getting updates about proceedings.In the modern era, all judgments and orders are uploaded on the Web-Sites of all Courts. Therefore, no litigant can be permitted to find excuse on the ground that he was not appraised of the judgment and order.”The petition arose from a 2002 Civil Suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed alleged to be bogus and fraudulent. After issues were framed in December 2016, the petitioners-plaintiffs sought 16 adjournments and despite being repeatedly accommodated, failed to lead evidence. Eventually, the trial court dismissed the suit for default on October 15, 2018. The petitioners later filed a composite application seeking condonation of delay and restoration of the suit, which came to be rejected, leading to the present petition before the high court. Counsel for the petitioners advocate A. R. Kadri, contended that the petitioners were unaware of the dismissal as their advocate had neither remained present nor informed them of the proceedings. It was argued that litigants should not suffer for the fault of their advocate and that refusal to condone delay would defeat substantial justice. Primarily, reliance was placed on the decision of a Coordinate High Court Bench in Aiyubbhai Ajitkhan Sipai v. Kanjibhai Dhanjibhai Ilariya (2025) where over a year's delay was condoned on similar grounds, with the Court noting that substantial justice should be given more emphasis than technicalities of explaining “each day's delay.” On the other hand, advocate S. P. Majmudar for the respondent-defendants, opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners-plaintiffs had been granted at least sixteen opportunities to lead evidence but remained absent throughout. He argued that no sufficient cause had been shown for the delay of more than fourteen months and that the petitioners could not escape liability, buttressing their case with opposing case law.After considering the rival submissions and examining the record, the High Court found that the petitioners had failed to disclose even the basic details such as the date or source of knowledge regarding dismissal of the suit. The Court noted that despite receiving notice from the trial court, the plaintiffs “remained negligent and allowed the proceedings ex parte,” and did nothing beyond seeking adjournments.The Court also rejected the petitioners' plea that their advocate had failed to inform them, observing that a vigilant litigant would have taken steps such as issuing notice to the advocate or otherwise monitoring the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court concluded that no sufficient cause had been shown and that the petitioners' conduct did not warrant exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the petition and vacated the interim relief.Case title: LR OF SARDAR HIMMATBHAI KHOKAR & ORS. v/s LR OF JESANGBHAI AMTHABHAI & ORS.R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3651 of 2022Click Here To Read/Download OrderCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 63

Litigants Can't Plead Ignorance When Judgments Are Uploaded Online: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Restore Suit Dismissed For Default

Ananya Tangri

Tags