Supreme Court of India
Nitin Mahadeo Jawale vs Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke on 22 November, 2024
Diary No.25784/2024
2024 INSC 902
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PETITION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CIVIL)…………………OF 2024
(Arising out of Diary No.25784/2024)
NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. 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.
3. The petitioners herein are the original defendants and
respondent no.1 herein is the original plaintiff.
Signature Not Verified
4.
Digitally signed by
It appears from the materials on record that as the
CHANDRESH
Date: 2024.11.26
18:34:48 IST
Reason:
1
Diary No.25784/2024
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.
5. We find no error not to speak of any error of law in
the impugned judgment passed by the High Court.
6. 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.
7. Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned
2
Diary No.25784/2024
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.
8. 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.
9. In view of the aforesaid, petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
………………………………………J.
(J.B. Pardiwala)
……………………………………J.
(R. Mahadevan)
New Delhi;
22nd November, 2024
3