Litigants Should Approach Courts In Time; Should Not Blame A Previously Engaged Counsel Without Proper Verification: Sikkim High Court
The insurer withdrew averment on trial counsel’s ill-health after court sought explanation; the Court condoned 223-day delay in revision, imposed Rs. 50,000 costs for POCSO victims’ rehabilitation.
The Sikkim High Court has remarked that blaming a previously engaged counsel without proper verification by the litigant is a serious matter that should be avoided, while noting that litigants must be conscious of their rights and approach courts in time.
Condoning a delay of 223 days in a civil revision filed by National Insurance Company Limited, the Court took a justice-oriented approach so that the matter could be heard on merits. It made condonation conditional on costs of Rs. 50,000, imposed on the overall picture emerging from the application, the affidavits and the reply, to be deposited with the Sikkim State Legal Services Authority for the rehabilitation of POCSO victims.
A Bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan observed, “…A proper appreciation of the pleadings in the application for condonation of delay makes me believe that it was more on error of judgment of the draftsman to draft the application in the manner. Blaming a counsel who was previously engaged without a proper verification on the part of the applicant is a serious matter. This was incorrect and not appreciated. It should be avoided. It is also clear that the litigants should be conscious about their rights and approach the Courts in time”.
“…the only explanation available before this Court seeking condonation of delay of 223 days is the explanation relating to the present counsel. The explanation reflects lethargy and failure on the part of the applicant which is wanting. The explanation that the officers were involved in the SIR process of West Bengal as deputed lacks in material particulars or records to support this. It could be true. It may not be true as well”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Madan Kumar Sundas appeared for the applicant and Advocate Tarun Choudhary, through video conferencing appeared for the respondent.
The Branch Manager of National Insurance Company Limited sought to challenge a trial court order dated August 30, 2025. In its condonation application filed on April 10, 2026, the insurer initially blamed its previous counsel's health and cited administrative delays, including officers being deputed on election duty in West Bengal and the current counsel needing time to review a tax matter.
After the respondent filed a reply on July 20, 2026, the Court directed the insurer to clarify the health claims. In subsequent affidavits filed on August 27 and September 23, 2026, the applicant admitted the health averment was a miscommunication, withdrew the allegation, and tendered an unconditional apology to the counsel and the Court.
The Sikkim High Court noted that withdrawing the allegation left only weak explanations reflecting institutional lethargy and unsupported deputation claims.
Cause Title: The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Yoel Subba (I.A. No. 01 of 2026 in CRP No. 05 of 2026)
Appearances:
Applicant: Advocates Madan Kumar Sundas, Anita Limboo and Priyanka Subba.
Respondent: Advocate Tarun Choudhary (through video conferencing) for the respondent.