Aastha Pareek
The Delhi High Court on December 17, 2024, has taken a strong stance against the increasingly prevalent tendency of litigants to shift the blame for inordinate delays in filing petitions onto their counsel, describing the practice as “unwholesome.” In the case of Rahul Mavai v. Union of India and Ors., the Court dismissed a writ petition filed six years after the impugned order, emphasizing that such delays cannot simply be attributed to alleged negligence or tardiness of legal representatives.
The petitioner, who sought to challenge an order passed in the year 2018, claimed that he had entrusted the matter to a counsel who failed to file the case and misled him for years. It was only after discovering this, the petitioner argued, that he took steps to approach the appropriate Court. However, the Bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, found the explanation inadequate, highlighting that the litigants have a duty to remain vigilant about their cases, even after delegating responsibilities to their lawyers.
The Court underscored that while there might be exceptional cases where counsel misconduct genuinely hinders a litigant’s ability to approach the Court, such claims must be substantiated with convincing evidence. It was noted that filing a complaint against a lawyer to the Bar Council, though indicative of discontent, does not automatically absolve the litigant of their obligation to monitor the progress of their case.
The Bench reiterated the principle that delay defeats equity and that Courts must exercise discretion cautiously while entertaining belated petitions. The Court observed that allowing such delays could lead to significant prejudice against other parties and disrupt the judicial process. Without persuasive proof that the delay was beyond the petitioner’s control, discretionary relief could not be granted.
The judgment further articulated that, if a litigant convincingly demonstrates that they were misled by their counsel, Courts may consider condoning the delay to prevent injustice. However, in this case, the petitioner failed to provide sufficient material to justify the six-year delay. As a result, the writ petition was dismissed solely on the grounds of unexplained delay and laches, without delving into the merits of the case.
The Delhi High Court’s firm stance sends a clear message about the importance of accountability, both on the part of counsel and litigants, in the timely pursuit of legal remedies.
Case Name:- Rahul Mavai v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number:- W.P.(C) 17440/2024
Bench:- Justices C. Hari Shankar and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta,