LI Network
Published on: November 02, 2023 at 12:33 IST
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has cautioned a fresh lawyer to exercise restraint in drafting and addressing the Court, considering a borderline “contemptuous” reference.
The lawyer referred to an Appellate Court as “his” and contended that the application had been rejected on “irrelevant ground,” which led to criticism from the Court.
During the hearing of a revision plea related to a delay condonation of 12 days, the Court expressed its disapproval of the drafting and addressing style used in the pleadings.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal remarked that the petition seemed misdirected and had, to some extent, wasted the Court’s time. The language used in the revision petition, particularly referring to the Appellate Court as “his” and claiming that the application had been decided on irrelevant grounds with perverse observations, teetered on the edge of being considered contemptuous.
Despite the critical assessment, the Court did not take adverse action against the lawyer, taking into account that he was a recent entrant to the legal profession after retiring from the Indian Revenue Service. Instead, the bench advised the counsel to exercise restraint in the drafting of petitions and when addressing arguments in the Court.
The revision petition in question stemmed from a suit for possession through specific performance filed by the petitioner against the respondent, which was decreed in 2022. However, the defendant appealed the judgment and decree and submitted an application for condonation of a 12-day delay in filing the appeal.
The Court, referring to the need to prioritize hearing parties on their merits and avoid non-suiting based on technicalities, noted that the “sufficient cause” for delay, as defined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, should be interpreted liberally.
It emphasized that condoning delay should only occur when there is no negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides attributable to the party involved.
Justice Aggarwal clarified that in cases where a matter is presented to the Court after the statutory limitation period, the applicant must provide a valid “sufficient cause” that explains why they couldn’t approach the Court within the set limit.
The Court further highlighted that if a party is found to be negligent, lacking bona fides, not acting diligently, or remaining inactive, then there is no justifiable basis to condone the delay.
The Court stated that no court should condone an unreasonable delay by imposing any conditions. Applications should be decided according to the parameters established by the court concerning delay condonation.
In the case at hand, the suit was decided on October 27, 2022, and the appeal was filed with a 12-day delay. The application for condonation of delay claimed that talks of a compromise were underway, but the petitioner withdrew from the talks after the statutory limitation period had passed.
The Court found that the application presented sufficient cause and that the first Appellate Court had properly condoned the delay. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.