Summary
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court order that set aside a trial court's condonation of a delay of about four and a half years in filing a written statement, observing that a litigant cannot shift the whole blame for inordinate delay onto his advocate, since he must himself stay vigilant about his case.
Issues
- Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the trial court's order permitting the defendants to file their written statement after a delay of over four and a half years.
- Whether alleged negligence or carelessness of the advocate is by itself a ground to condone long and inordinate delay.
Held
- The High Court committed no error, let alone an error of law, in setting aside the trial court's order that had allowed the defendants to file their written statement more than four and a half years after the stage for filing it had been closed. (¶¶ 4, 5)
- The Court noted a growing tendency among litigants to place the entire blame for delay on their advocates, including cases where the advocate files an affidavit for the client citing personal difficulties so that the delay may be condoned. (¶ 6)
- Even assuming the advocate was careless or negligent, that alone cannot justify condoning long and inordinate delay, because a litigant owes a duty to be vigilant about his own rights and about proceedings pending at his instance; he cannot disown his advocate at will and seek relief by blaming him. (¶¶ 7, 8)
Result
Delay in filing the special leave petition condoned; special leave petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.