Lawyer cannot justify delay in filing appeal saying he could not understand lower court order: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court recently observed that an advocate or a self-represented litigant cannot justify an inordinate delay in filing an appeal by claiming a failure to understand a court order [Ajit Kumar Gola Vs State (GNCTD) and Anr].

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma was dealing with a plea moved by a petitioner-in-person, who is also a practicing advocate, challenging a Sessions Court order after a delay of over one year.

The petitioner had argued that he faced a difficulty in understanding the sessions court order and therefore took a detailed legal research to comprehend its implications before approaching the High Court.

However, the High Court found this explanation “not satisfactory” for condoning the delay, considering that the petitioner himself was a lawyer.

“What thus emerges from the record is that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The explanation that the petitioner was engaged in understanding the impugned order and conducting legal research in itself cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of about one year, especially when the petitioner himself is a practising advocate," the Bench said.

The Court also observed that legal research is a routine exercise for lawyers and, thus, the failure to understand a judicial order was not sufficient ground to condone the delay.

“Even otherwise, legal research or consultation with other lawyers, even by a practising lawyer is a routine exercise undertaken by a self represented litigant and advocates alike, in case, one is not able to understand the order passed by a trial Court which is to be challenged in a higher Court. Not being able to understand a judicial order by a self represented litigant, who wants to challenge the order before a higher Court or by a counsel who may receive a brief on behalf of a client cannot be treated as a ground to justify an inordinate delay," the Bench said.

The petitioner-in-person had challenged a session court order by which an accused was discharged and the summoning order against that accused was quashed.

The petitioner's plea showed there was a delay of 412 days in filing the plea. However, he argued in Court that there was a delay of approximately 316 days. 

The Court said the petitioner's application for condonation of delay was conspicuously silent with respect to the steps taken by him during the long intervening period of more than one year after the passing of the sessions court order.

"There is no disclosure of any specific dates, events, or circumstances explaining the cause of delay and as to why the petitioner could not approach this Court within a reasonable time," it noted.

The Court also observed that if the petitioner genuinely faced difficulty in understanding the sessions court order or the legal position, he could have sought assistance from another legal practitioner or taken appropriate legal advice at the relevant time.

"The record does not indicate that the petitioner exercised due diligence or reasonable promptitude in pursuing the remedy available to him. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if such explanations were to be readily accepted, the requirement of showing “sufficient cause” for delay would lose its meaning as every litigant or lawyer will take this ground that he was unable to understand the judicial order and remained busy in understanding the order and conducting legal research for more than one year," it added.

Further, the Court said that though there is no prescribed limitation period for filing a petition invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has to be filed within a reasonable period of time.

Therefore, the Court dismissed the advocate’s application seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition. Consequently, the Court also rejected the plea challenging the sessions court order.

Advocate Ajit Kumar Gola appeared in person.

Additional Standing Counsel Rupali Bandhopadhya with advocates Abhijeet Kumar and Amisha Gupta appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]