NGO & Its Senior Functionaries Not Expected To Not Keep Track Of Lis: Delhi HC Dismisses Application Seeking Condonation Of Delay Of 565 Days
The application seeking condonation of delay was before the Delhi High Court by a registered NGO, its President and Secretary.
The Delhi High Court dismissed an application filed by an NGO seeking condonation of delay of over a year in filing the appeal in a money recovery suit and observed that an educated litigant is expected to keep track of his litigation.
The appellants, a registered Non-Government Organization (NGO) and its President and Secretary filed the application, seeking condonation of delay of more than one year in filing the accompanying appeal under Section 96 CPC to assail the judgment of recovery of money. As per the Registry, the delay was of 565 days.
Highlighting the fact that merely by engaging a counsel, the litigant cannot claim to be not under a duty to keep track of the case, the Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia said, “Condoning delay in such circumstances, believing the bald allegations of the applicant would be tantamount to condemning the erstwhile counsel without hearing him and that too on judicial record.”
Advocate Mir Adnan Zahoor represented the Appellants.
Arguments
It was the case of the appellants that for the professional misconduct of their erstwhile counsel, the appellants cannot be made to suffer. It was submitted by counsel for appellants that the appellants are not conversant with the “nitty-gritty” of procedures of law, so they cannot be penalised for this delay in filing the appeal.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the suit culminating in the impugned judgment had been pending since the year 2016. The appellants didn’t place on record the order sheets of the Trial Court to show the number of adjournments granted to them. After allowing the adjournment request of the appellants, the Trial Court heard the counsel for the present respondent and granted liberty to counsel for the appellants to address arguments on any working day. It was further noticed by the Bench that the appellants opted not to avail of this opportunity and did not at all appear to address arguments.
Referring to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Bench said, “Where an applicant is able to satisfy the court that he was precluded from filing the appeal or application other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI CPC from circumstances beyond his control, the court has discretion to condone the delay in filing the appeal etc. Like any other discretion, the discretion under Section 5 of the Act also must be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind the principles evolved across time. One of those pr3inciples evolved across time is that the sufficiency of cause set up by the applicant under Section 5 of the Act must be construed liberally in favour of the applicant.”
The Court found it difficult to believe that there was any misconduct on the part of the erstwhile counsel for the appellants, as alleged by them. Besides, in the absence of any action by way of any complaint before the concerned Bar Council, believing such allegation of the appellants qua professional misconduct of their erstwhile counsel would tantamount to condemning the erstwhile counsel unheard, that too on judicial record.
The Bench further observed, “An educated urban litigant cannot claim same protection of this rule as extended to an uneducated rustic litigant in the sense that where the latter completely banks upon his counsel and fails to keep a track of his litigation, it is understandable, but it is not understandable where the former does so. In case of an educated litigant, his duty does not end merely by signing the fee cheque of the counsel. An educated litigant is expected to keep a track of his litigation. In the present case, the appellants are not illiterate or semi literate rustic individuals. The appellants are a registered NGO and its senior functionaries, so cannot be expected to not keep a track of the lis.”
As per the Bench, the appellants ought to have kept track of the money recovery suit pending against them, but they opted not to do so and did not ensure that their counsel should address final arguments before the Trial Court. The appellants could not seek condonation of colossal delay under the pretext of professional misconduct of their erstwhile counsel since as per the culmination of the suit into the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants remained sleeping over it.
Dismissing the application, the Bench concluded, “It would be a travesty of justice if now the delay in filing the appeal is condoned, pushing the successful litigant through another round of proceedings in appeal.”
Cause Title: Jan Chetna Jagriti Avom Shaikshanik Vikas Manch v. Sh Anand Raj Jhawar Sole Proprietor of M/s RR Agrotech (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:934)
Appearance
Appellants: Advocates Mir Adnan Zahoor and Akhil Bharat Kukreja
