2019 (9) TMI 634 - HC - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - delay is of 20 years - as per applicant she entrusted her brief to her advocate and her advocate did not take any steps to pursue the matter - HELD THAT - 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 the reason as supplemented in the application is nothing but a attempt for claiming discretionary relief of condonation of delay from the Court. The applicant has not explained the delay rather has not given plausible explanation for delay. Application dismissed with costs of 1, 000/-

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the second appeal after a 20-year delay.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court dealt with an application for condonation of delay in filing a second appeal, where the delay was a significant 20 years. The Court emphasized that while the quantum of delay is a relevant factor, it is not the sole determinant in deciding such applications. The burden lies on the party seeking condonation to provide a plausible explanation for the delay. In this case, the applicant claimed that her advocate failed to inform her about the outcome of the litigation, leading to the delay. However, the Court noted that the applicant did not proactively contact her advocate to inquire about the case progress, which is expected from a diligent litigant. The Court highlighted that a litigant cannot simply entrust the matter to an advocate and then absolve themselves of any responsibility.

Moreover, the Court expressed disapproval towards the applicant making allegations against the advocate without involving them in the proceedings. The Court found the reasons provided by the applicant for the delay to be insufficient and viewed the application as an attempt to seek discretionary relief without a proper explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and imposed costs on the applicant to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee within a specified timeframe. As a result of the dismissal of the application, the second appeal was also dismissed by the Court.