Litigant Needs To Be Vigilant, Can’t Put Entire Blame On Advocate To Get Delay Condoned: Delhi HC [Read Judgment]
"The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance"Delhi High Court recently rapped an Appellant-company for their lack of vigilance in conducting a suit for recovery of money, and their subsequent conduct in blaming the Counsel for the delay. Delhi High Court recently rapped an Appellant-company for their lack of vigilance in conducting a suit for recovery of money, and their subsequent conduct in blaming the Counsel for the delay in filing an Appeal. “The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The Court was hearing an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking condonation of delay of 400 days in filing an appeal against an August, 2015 judgment passed by the Additional District Judge.
Discover Related
Irked by magistrate’s order advocates’ stage snap protest in Mangaluru
‘Disgraceful’: MP high court reports lawyer’s outburst to chief justice Kait
‘Everyday drama’: SC censures Punjab govt over absenteeism of counsel
Family court lawyers flag issues in E-filing, write to CJ
Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 to March 23, 2025
Telangana HC issues notices to accused in Vivekananda murder case
Prepared for serious steps: CJI Sanjiv Khanna on cash row
CJI briefs SC judges on justice Varma case, says transfer is just the beginning