The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the principle of balancing justice scales when considering delay condonation cases. It recently addressed the plight of litigants from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds who should not suffer due to their advocates' lapses. The Court acknowledged that while caution is necessary in condoning long delays, special consideration must be given to the unique challenges faced by these litigants.
In its ruling, the Court observed:
"We are aware of the caution that needs to be exercised in matters relating to condonation of delay of longer durations. However, balancing of scales of justice becomes imperative when it comes to such matters, especially given the socio-economic background of a large number of India's population who approach these doors of justice as litigants."
Read Also:- Supreme Court Upholds Karnataka Transport Law: Repeal of 1976 Act Valid Without Fresh Presidential Assent
Case Background
The case in question, Kumari Sahu vs. Bhubanananda Sahu & Others, arose from a civil dispute over marital status and inheritance rights. Kumari Sahu, the appellant, initially sought a declaration from the Civil Court affirming her status as the legally married wife of the late Raj Kishore Sahoo. She also contested the legal status of other parties claiming similar relationships with the deceased.
The Civil Suit was dismissed in 2016, and her first appeal was rejected in 2021. She then filed a second appeal before the High Court in 2022. However, a delay of 225 days in filing the second appeal became a significant obstacle.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Tamil Nadu Governor’s Authority in Withholding Bills
In her plea for condonation of delay, Sahu attributed the delay to her advocate, who failed to inform her about the earlier dismissal promptly. She argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but a result of her advocate's lapses.
The High Court, however, found her explanation insufficient and dismissed her appeal. This prompted Sahu to approach the Supreme Court.
The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta took a compassionate stance, recognizing the challenges faced by socio-economically weaker litigants. The Court cited the landmark 1981 case of Rafiq and Another v. Munshilal and Another [(1981) 2 SCC 788], which established that litigants should not be penalized for their advocates' negligence.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Quashes Death Penalty Over Lack of Fair Trial in Madhya Pradesh Case
The judgment in the Rafiq case stated:
"What is the fault of the party who, having done everything in his power expected of him, would suffer because of the default of his advocate? The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative."
Building on this precedent, the Supreme Court highlighted the ongoing dependency of many litigants on their advocates, particularly in regions with lower economic and educational opportunities.
After reviewing the case details, the Supreme Court found Sahu's explanation satisfactory. It noted that once informed of her first appeal's dismissal, Sahu acted promptly to file the second appeal. The Court ruled that the delay deserved to be condoned, allowing her second appeal to proceed.
Read Also:- SC Upholds Kerala High Court's Direction to Register FIRs on Women's Exploitation in Malayalam Cinema
The judgment stated:
"We find that the appellant-plaintiff had sufficiently explained the reasons leading to a delay of 225 days in preferring the RSA. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the delay in preferring RSA No. 202 of 2022 deserved to be condoned."
The matter was remanded to the High Court, with instructions to expedite the case's resolution.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's sensitivity to the socio-economic realities of litigants. It also reinforces the principle that justice should not be compromised due to procedural lapses caused by legal representatives. The Court’s approach serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding fairness and equity in the legal process.
