9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. Conclusion - There are no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned judgment of the High Court warranting interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Dhawan, Adv., Mrs. Kiran Dhawan, Adv., Mr. Chander S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al was time barred by 534 days. 5. The first appellate court condoned the delay of 534 days in preferring the appeal essentially on the ground that the litigant should not super on account of negligence on the part of the advocate and the court should adopt a liberal approach in condoning the delay. 6. The respondent herein being dissatisfied by the order passed by the first appellate court condoning the delay challenged the same before the High Court. The High Court allowed the civil revision application by which the order passed by the appellate court condoning the delay of 534 days came to be quashed and set aside. 7. In such circumstances, the petitioners are here before this Court with the present petitions. 8. We have heard the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief. 11. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Salil Dutta v. T.M. M.C. Private Ltd. reported in (1993) 2 SCC 185, wherein this Court observed as under:- 8. The advocate is the agent of the party. His acts and statements, made within the limits of authority given to him, are the acts and statements of the principal i.e. the party who engage him. It is true that in certain situations, the court may, in the interest of justice, set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. (Emphasis supplied) 12. As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as under:- The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
