The party may ask the case of case from his lawyer, a simple lack of communication with the lawyer who is not a reason to prevent the delay in submitting the call: Rajasthan HC

While rejecting an appeal for the court rejection of a forbidden appeal for two and a half years, The High Court Rajasthan He noted that he could not apologize only on the grounds that the petitioner was not informed by his lawyer about the order adopted by the lower court, when no justification was provided on the non -observance of his case from his lawyer.

The bank from Justice Manoj Kumar Garg He heard a revision petition filed by a spouse (“petitioner”) against which the maintenance ordinance was adopted in July 2023.

It was the case of the petitioner that he was a worker working outside the state and was not informed about the maintenance order by his lawyer. And as soon as he learned about the same thing, the call was filed, and the delay was purely in good faith.

After hearing the content, the Court referred to section 5 of the Law on limitation of 1963, which provided for the conviction of delay in case of sufficient cause and argued that the purpose of limiting the rules was not to destroy the rights of the parties, but to prevent the expansion tactics.

It was noted that the “sufficient cause” under section 5 had to be interpreted liberally to promote a substantial justice in which the appellant was not held liable for any negligence, inaction or lack of grandchildren.

Moreover the Court referred to the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of Pathupati Subba Reddy (died) by L.S. & Ors. v. SPECIAL MP (LA) Collector in which it was considered that section 5 could not be interpreted liberally in which negligence, inaction or lack of good faith was involved. In this case, it was opposed in this case that, although the limitation can hardly affect the rights of the parties, it had to be applied with all its rigor.

The court was still referred to the decision to coordinate the bank at the High Court Rajasthan, that is. Harish & ANR. V Rajasthan Board of Muslim Waqf who took care of an identical case and considered that,

“While leveling an accusation against the lawyer in order not to inform the petitioner about the order adopted by the real estate officer, there is no explanation why the petitioners did not contact the lawyer for the 5 -year period. A litigant should be sufficiently vigilant and should be informed about the pending procedures and, therefore, the chelie statements from the petitioner that the lawyer has not informed the elimination of the problem, cannot be considered a plausible explanation for the condemnation of the inordinate delay in the petition. “

In this context, the court observed that the petitioner failed to provide any legitimate explanation behind the delay, because there was no justification regarding the non -observance of his lawyer about the status of the case.

“It is worth noting that no justification is provided for the non -observance of the petitioner to request the status of his case from the lawyer. Therefore, the applicant’s spent that his lawyer did not inform him about the order, cannot be taken seriously as a reasonable justification for the excessive delay in the appeal. “

As a result, the call was rejected.

Title: Saurendra V Bhugani & ANR.

Citation: 2025 Livelaw (RAJ) 100

Click here to read/download your order