Friday, 21 June 2019

Whether litigant can condemn his Advocate behind his back for seeking condonation of delay?

However, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant,
especially when a query was put to the learned counsel in
respect of the conduct on the part of the applicant as to
whether at any point of time, she on her own, contacted her
advocate, the reply was in negative. A litigant who
approaches to the Court must be diligent. He or she must
take all steps to pursue his or her litigation. It is expected
from the litigant that he or she is in contact with the lawyer
who is representing his or her cause in the Court of law. A
litigant cannot take a spacious plea that once the case is
entrusted with an the advocate his or her work is over and
the advocate will take care of the matter. An Advocate
always discharges his duties on the instructions given to him
by his client.

It is very easy for a litigant to make allegations
against an advocate behind his back. If the applicant wishes
to make allegations against the advocate, the applicant
should have a courage to join the advocate as a party and in
his presence should make allegation against him. Here, the
applicant wants to condemn the advocate behind his back.
In my view, it is impermissible and unacceptable. Further,
no steps are also being taken by the applicant against any
advocate under the provision of the Advocates Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.19/2018 IN
SECOND APPEAL ST. NO.22803/2017

Kanta alias Shanti Subhash Karkale .vs. Manjulabai alias Kholki 
Haribhau Tarare and anr.

CORAM : V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : JUNE 18, 2019

This is an application for condonation of delay in
filing the second appeal. Notices on this application were
issued. Pursuant to the notices issued, the non applicants
appeared and filed their reply, opposing the application for
condonation of delay.
I have heard Mr. Motwani, learned counsel for
the applicant and Mr. Gupte, learned counsel for the non
applicants.
At the outset, it is to be mentioned that the delay
is of 20 years. This delay is huge one. Merely because delay
is huge one, that does not disentitle a party coming before
the Court for condonation of delay. The quantum of delay
may be one of the consideration however it is not the final
guiding factor for the Court to decide an application for
condonation of delay. A party, who seeks indulgence from

the Court in respect of condonation of delay to file the
appeal, burden lies on the shoulder of such a party to
explain the delay, though not day by day, but by giving
plausible explanation. According to the learned counsel for
the applicant, the applicant entrusted her brief to her
advocate and her advocate did not take any steps to pursue
the matter. Consequently, the delay has occurred inasmuch
as it is the submission of the learned counsel that the
counsel, who was representing the applicant did not inform
the outcome of the litigation to her.
This submission, at the first blush, appears very
attractive and tends the Court to interfere with the matter.
However, after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant,
especially when a query was put to the learned counsel in
respect of the conduct on the part of the applicant as to
whether at any point of time, she on her own, contacted her
advocate, the reply was in negative. A litigant who
approaches to the Court must be diligent. He or she must
take all steps to pursue his or her litigation. It is expected
from the litigant that he or she is in contact with the lawyer
who is representing his or her cause in the Court of law. A
litigant cannot take a spacious plea that once the case is
entrusted with an the advocate his or her work is over and
the advocate will take care of the matter. An Advocate
always discharges his duties on the instructions given to him
by his client.

In the present case, Mr. Motwani, learned counsel
for the applicant could not point out before this Court that at
any point of time from 18.10.1997, when the decree, which
is sought to be challenged before this Court, was passed, the
applicant even remotely tried to contact her advocate to
know the fate of litigation.
In the application, it is stated that she entrusted
her matter to Mr. Vilas Mate, of Tumsar. She never met with
Mr. Bhole, Advocate. According to the learned counsel for
the applicant, Mr. Bhole might, on instructions from Mr.Vilas
Mate, have appeared before the Court below.
It is very easy for a litigant to make allegations
against an advocate behind his back. If the applicant wishes
to make allegations against the advocate, the applicant
should have a courage to join the advocate as a party and in
his presence should make allegation against him. Here, the
applicant wants to condemn the advocate behind his back.
In my view, it is impermissible and unacceptable. Further,
no steps are also being taken by the applicant against any
advocate under the provision of the Advocates Act.
Thus, in my view, the reason as supplemented in
the application is nothing but a attempt for claiming
discretionary relief of condonation of delay from the Court.
In my view, the applicant has not explained the delay, rather
has not given plausible explanation for delay. Hence, the
application is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed with
costs of Rs.1,000/to
be paid to the High Court Legal

Services Sub Committee, Nagpur within three weeks from
today.
The application is dismissed. Consequently, the
second appeal is also dismissed.
JUDGE

Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment