Supreme Court of India
NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS. versus BHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE
- Decided
- 22 November 2024
- Judges listed
- J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1318 · 2024 INSC 902
- Also cited as
- 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3468
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Delay condoned.
p. 1319
This petition arises from the Order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.15056 of 2019 dated 12th April, 2024 by which the High Court allowed the petition filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) and thereby set aside the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamkhed condoning the delay of 4½ years in filing the written statement.
p. 1319
The petitioners herein are the original defendants and respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff.
p. 1319
It appears from the materials on record that as the defendants failed to file their written statement in time the stage to file written statement was closed. Thereafter permission of the Trial Court was prayed for to file the written statement after a period of over 4½ years. The Trial Court permitted the defendants to file their written statement. The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the same challenged the order passed by the Trial Court permitting the defendants to file written statement after a period of 4½ years. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the trial court.
p. 1319
We find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
p. 1319
We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the delay condoned.
p. 1320
Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance.
p. 1320
The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.
p. 1320
In view of the aforesaid, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
p. 1320
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. Result of the case: Petition dismissed. Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)
p. 1320