Innocent litigants should not be punished for lawyer's lapse: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Wednesday emphasised that litigants should not be made to suffer on account of negligence by their lawyers. .Justice Bibhu Datta Guru made the observation in a case where certain litigants caught in a land dispute were not able to contest their case as their counsel failed to properly inform them about trial court proceedings in the matter. After the trial court ruled against these litigants in their absence, they gave instructions to their lawyer to file an appeal against the trial court order. However, due to some miscommunication, the lawyer merely forwarded the file to another counsel and the appeal was not filed within time. The appeal was later filed along with an application to condone the delays in filing it. However, the concerned court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was not filed within the legal limitation period. The aggrieved litigants then moved the High Court for relief. .In a ruling passed on April 8, the High Court emphasised that courts should adopt a liberal approach in such matters, where a judgment is passed in a litigant's absence due to the lawyer's negligence. "The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr. v. Munshilal & Anr.reported in (1981) AIR (SC) 1400 has held that a litigant should not be made to suffer for the fault, negligence or inaction of his counsel. Once a party has engaged an advocate and entrusted him with the conduct of the case, he is entitled to presume that the advocate will properly represent him before the Court, and the litigant cannot be expected to constantly monitor the proceedings or act as a watchdog over the advocate. Therefore, the innocent party should not be penalized for the default of his counsel," the Court said..The High Court proceeded to condone the delays noticed in the present case and directed the trial court to reconsider the applications on merits..The matter was tied to a civil suit filed by one Kamal Prasad Kasar over agricultural land in the villages of Kirwai and Darchura in Baloda Bazar district. Kasar alleged that one, Jairam Dubey, had fabricated a power of attorney and used it to sell the land to several buyers.The purchasers (defendants) contested the allegations before the civil court, arguing that the power of attorney had been validly executed and that the sale transactions were completed after the payment of the full sale consideration. They claimed that the sales were carried out through Dubey as the authorised power of attorney holder and that the transactions were duly registered.However, after filing their written statements, the defendants did not participate in the trial proceedings at the stage of evidence, following which the trial court proceeded ex parte (without hearing them). The trial court eventually ruled against them, holding that the power of attorney at the heart of the dispute was forged, rendering the sale deeds relied on by the defendants void. .The defendants/ land purchasers claimed that they were unaware that these trial court proceedings took place. They submitted that they came to know about the trial court's ex parte verdict only after a notice was sent by the local Tashildar regarding land mutation proceedings (updating of land records). After securing a certified copy of the trial court verdict, the defendants then instructed their counsel to take steps to challenge the same. However, due to the lawyer's negligence, the file was allegedly simply forwarded to another advocate, and no steps were taken to actually file the appeal. The defendants subsequently moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 (which allows a party to seek setting aside of an ex parte decree passed in their absence) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). They also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (which permits courts to condone delay in filing an application if sufficient cause is shown).However, these pleas were also dismissed, prompting the defendants to approach the High Court which has now ordered a reconsideration of the case by the trial court. .Advocates TK Jha and Parth Kumar Jha appeared for the appellants (defendants).Advocate Bharat Lal Dembra represented Kamal Prashad Kasar (respondent/ plaintiff before the trial court).Deputy Government Advocate Anand Gupta and Panel Lawyer Malay Jain appeared on behalf of the State. .[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.