The High Court said that the litigants cannot be liable for the counsel’s carelessness over the bar of limitation over the handling case and his rights will be guaranteed within the limits of the law of the country.
- The Special Appeal was filed by the appellant’s counsel with the delay of 105 days overrides the limitation period.
- For that delay of filing an appeal, the delay condonation application was also filed.
- The Application stating the reasons for delay that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had declared a strike and he went to the village to meet his ailing relatives.
- After he returns to the office, reminded that the appeal has not been filed yet. So, it is filed with the condonation application before the Hon’ble Court.
The Court observed the counter-affidavit that the counsel for appellant had been regularly coming to the court and the High Court’s record stating that the counsel handling the other cases in the said period.
The Court also examined that the appellant acted with the carelessness and the counsel will act adherence to the subordinate of his lack of diligence upon the litigation.
Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar held that the litigant could not be liable for the mistake done by the counsel over the bar of limitation period and highlighted that the appellant should approach the High Court with the obedient and clean-handed lawyers.
The High Court advised that the litigants will act as a prudent person and dealt with the counsel who had diligence and respect over the law of limitation.
CASE NAME: Rani Rewati Devi Pratap Nyas and another V. Administrator General, Uttar Pradesh and 22 others.
NAME: Viswa ganesh K, BALLB (Hons.), School of Excellence in Law, Dr. Ambedkar Law University, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments