The Delhi High Court has refused to revive an appeal more than 17 years after it was dismissed for non-prosecution.
The appellant attributed the 6,290-day delay to financial difficulties, lack of notice and loss of contact with his former lawyer. The court found those explanations insufficient, stressing that litigants retain an independent responsibility to monitor their cases.
Rules allowing delay to be excused are intended to prevent genuine injustice, not erase prolonged and unexplained inaction. Courts may show flexibility where circumstances are beyond a party’s control, but that discretion weakens when no meaningful effort is made for years.
The ruling reinforces legal finality. Blaming counsel, without evidence of sustained diligence by the litigant, will rarely justify reviving litigation after such an extraordinary lapse.
