The Orissa High Court has ruled that an advocate should not be held accountable if the litigant did not actively and diligently pursue their case. 

In this specific case, a petition was filed to request an extension of 1391 days for filing a restoration application after the original writ petition was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to meet certain court requirements within the specified time frame. The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by a breakdown in communication with the advocate and a lack of awareness regarding the court's order.

The Division bench, composed of Chief Justice Subhasis Talapatra and Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo, ruled that it's common for individuals to switch lawyers and attribute negligence to their previous legal representatives. However, the Court cannot ignore the context, events, and, most importantly, the behavior of the party involved when considering the allegations made by that party against their lawyer as unquestionable truth.

The writ petition was brought for consideration in 2006, and notification was served to the opposing parties. However, the petitioner asserted that they were unaware of this order until 2019. Upon learning of the dismissal, the petitioner promptly took steps to hire new legal counsel and submitted the restoration application.

Opposing party number 1 contradicted the restoration application, contending that the delay in submitting was not reasonable and that the petitioner did not offer a valid explanation for the delay. They stressed the need to adhere strictly to the statute of limitations and argued that the reasons provided by the petitioner did not justify the delay.

The Court observed that the petitioner primarily relied on two reasons for requesting an extension of the deadline: the alleged negligence of their legal representative and their lack of awareness regarding the court's orders. However, the Court raised a valid question as to why no action had been taken against the negligent advocate, who held the prestigious position of being a designated Senior Advocate of the court. The Court noted that the opposing party's counsel, as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate, rightly pointed out that Sri Bidyadhar Mishra was indeed a designated Senior Advocate of the court who regularly appeared before it in various cases. Therefore, the Court viewed the petitioner's claim that Sri Mishra was residing in Bhubaneswar and not attending court proceedings for several years as implausible and unbelievable.

The Court cited a Supreme Court case that underscored the significance of not disregarding the principles of delay and laches. It stressed the importance of a petitioner staying vigilant and maintaining consistent communication with their legal counsel, particularly when a case was under consideration by the court.

In the court's assessment, it was noted that the case was initially brought before it on November 21, 2006, with instructions to issue notice; however, the required documents were not submitted in a timely manner. Furthermore, the case remained dormant on the court's docket for a substantial period of nine years before resurfacing. This extended period of inactivity strongly suggested that the petitioner had failed to maintain regular communication with their legal counsel to inquire about the case's progress. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner had displayed a marked lack of diligence and attentiveness in pursuing their case, leading to the observed negligence in their legal proceedings.

In this particular case, the petitioner's lack of communication with their advocate over an extended period clearly indicated a significant degree of carelessness on their part. Despite receiving multiple court orders, the petitioner failed to take timely action. The Court, upon careful consideration, deemed the petitioner's explanation for the delay to be unfounded and lacking in sufficient justification.

The court stated, “It is very hard to believe that a hawk-eyed litigant would not put the slightest of labour to enquire about the status of the case till the next listing, which happened only after a gap of almost a decade.”

Taking into account its discretionary power to condone delays, the Court determined that the delay of 1391 days in this case was excessive and lacked reasonable justification. Consequently, the Court made the decision to reject the interim application seeking the condonation of the delay, which ultimately resulted in the dismissal of the restoration application.

Case: Shankarlal Patwari v. Jagannath Mahaprabhu & Ors, I.A. No.348 of 2019.