Litigant Has To Suffer For Incorrect Advice By His Lawyer, No Leniency Can Be Shown To Him: Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Judgment]

Litigant Has To Suffer For Incorrect Advice By His Lawyer, No Leniency Can Be Shown To Him: Madhya Pradesh HC [Read Judgment]

A litigant cannot plead that since, his lawyer had not given correct legal advice to him, therefore, he should not suffer, the Court said.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has observed that a litigant cannot plead that since his lawyer had not given correct legal advice to him, he should not be made to suffer with adverse orders.

Before the high court, in an appeal proceeding against a trial court judgment that had decreed a suit for declaration of title and specific performance of contract, an interim application was filed for sending an agreement to sell to a handwriting expert to verify the signatures of the appellant.

As an explanation as to why no such application was filed before the trial court, the counsel for appellant told the court that the appellants are rustic villagers and they do not know about the technicalities of law, and since, it was not so advised by their counsel. Because of a lapse on the part of the Advocate in giving correct advise, the party to a litigation should not suffer, the appellants’ counsel argued before the court.

Rejecting that contention, Justice GS Ahluwalia observed: “Advocates claim themselves to be professionals having knowledge of law. They are law graduates. They cannot claim that they were not having knowledge of law. The Advocates cannot say, that the party should not suffer because they were not technically sound.”

The court also observed that since there are two parties in a litigation, if a very lenient view is adopted by ignoring the mistake of a lawyer, then it would always adversely affect the rights of the other litigant. “If a litigant feels that he has been cheated by his Counsel by not giving proper legal advice, then the said litigant has remedy, against his lawyer, under the law of the land, but to the detriment of the interest of the other litigant, no leniency can be shown to a litigant on the ground that the Counsel engaged by such litigant was not professionally competent,” the court said.

The court also observed that professional incompetence of a lawyer cannot be presumed and if the lawyer had consciously decided not to move an application at the stage of trial, then no fault can be attributed to such a lawyer. “If a person had decided to engage a lawyer having less knowledge, then it is litigant, who has to suffer for his choice. A litigant cannot plead that since, his lawyer had not given correct legal advice to him, therefore, he should not suffer,” the court said.

Read the Judgment Here