Allegations Against Advocates For Delay Without Impleading Them Or Taking Action Unacceptable: Bombay High Court
A civil application was filed seeking condonation of a 203-day delay in filing an appeal.
Justice Jitendra Jain, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has criticised the increasing tendency of litigants to attribute delays in legal proceedings to alleged negligence of their advocates, without taking any formal action against them or even impleading them as parties in proceedings where such allegations are made.
A Bench of Justice Jitendra Jain said, “It has become regular practice to make allegations against the advocate in such matters of delay without making advocate a party and without taking any action against the advocate. If according to the litigants, the advocate is responsible for the mess created then appropriate proceedings should have been taken or atleast he should be made a party.”
A civil application was seeking condonation of a 203-day delay in filing an appeal. The applicants contended that the delay was caused by their previous advocate, who allegedly failed to attend court hearings in their civil suit and did not respond to their phone calls. They further claimed that they became aware of the adverse judgment only after checking the district court’s website.
To substantiate their claims, the applicants relied on WhatsApp messages exchanged in February and March 2016.
However, the Court found this explanation inadequate and unconvincing. The Court pointed out that while the applicants produced WhatsApp chats relating to a review petition in 2016, they failed to place on record any communication such as WhatsApp messages or call records from August 2015, the crucial period during which the suit was heard and finally decided.
The Court also examined the roznama (daily court proceedings), which revealed that one of the applicants was personally present in court in July 2015 when the matter was adjourned for final arguments. This directly contradicted the applicants’ assertion that they were completely unaware of the proceedings and the outcome of the case.
In view of these inconsistencies, the High Court held that no sufficient cause had been shown to justify the delay. Consequently, it dismissed the application for condonation of delay, along with the consequential appeal.
Additionally, the Court underscored that the applicants had neither initiated any disciplinary or legal proceedings against the advocate they accused of negligence nor made him a party to the proceedings. Accepting such allegations without giving the advocate an opportunity to be heard would be unfair and legally untenable.
Cause Title: Rahul Sambhu Kabade & Anr. v. Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur & Ors., [2026:BHC-AS:2671]
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocate Nikhil Adkine and Swaroop Godbole
Respondents: Advocates JK Shah and Namrata Thakur