Litigants blaming lawyers for delays without taking action against them: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has deprecated the growing trend of litigants blaming their advocates for delays in legal proceedings without initiating any action against the lawyers or making them a party to applications in which such allegations are raised [Rahul Sambhu Kabade & Anr v. Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur & Ors.]..Justice Jitendra Jain opined that the Court cannot accept such allegations of professional negligence against a lawyer, merely based on the litigant's narration of events. The judge noted that it has become a regular practice for litigants to make such allegations against their former advocates to explain away delays. It added that if litigants are blaming their lawyers for such lapses, then they should also take proper action against the lawyers or at least make them a party to court proceedings where such allegations are raised. "It has become regular practice to make allegations against the advocate in such matters of delay without making advocate a party and without taking any action against the advocate. If according to the litigants, the advocate is responsible for the mess created then appropriate proceedings should have been taken or atleast he should be made a party," the Court's January 19 order reads. .The Court took note of the issue while dismissing a civil application seeking the condonation of a delay of 203 days in filing an appeal.The applicants argued that the delay occurred because their previous advocate failed to attend court hearings in the civil suit filed by them or respond to their calls.They claimed they learned that their suit had been decided against them only after checking the district court website. To support their claim, the applicants annexed WhatsApp chats from February and March 2016. The Court, however, found the explanation unconvincing.Justice Jain pointed out that while the applicants produced WhatsApp chats from 2016 regarding a review petition, they failed to provide any communication logs or call data records from August 2015, the period when the suit was actually heard and decided.“I failed to understand that if the applicant has annexed WhatsApp chats from February 2016 then what prevented him to annex the WhatsApp chats, if any, from 6 August 2015,” the Court said. The Court also took note of the roznama (daily court record) which showed the applicant was present in court in July 2015 when the matter was adjourned for final arguments, contradicting the claim of total ignorance.The Court found no justification for the delay sought to be condoned and dismissed the application and the consequential appeal..The Court further found that the applicants had not initiated any proceeding against the lawyer they accused of being negligent, nor had they made him a party to the case. It was not appropriate to accept the allegations against the lawyer without hearing him, the Court pointed out. “Acceptance of reasons would amount to accepting negligence of the advocate without any material and without hearing the advocate," the Court said. .Advocates Nikhil Adkine and Swaroop Godbole appeared for he appellants.Advocates JK Shah and Namrata Thakur briefed by RJ Law appeared for the respondents.[Read order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.