A sharp reminder has emerged from the Bombay High Court on a practice it says is becoming all too familiar: litigants blaming their former advocates for procedural delays, while stopping short of taking any formal action against them.
The Court made it clear that allegations of professional lapse cannot be casually accepted when the person accused is neither made a party to the proceedings nor given an opportunity to respond. Simply narrating events, the judge observed, does not amount to proof of negligence.
The issue surfaced while the Court was considering a plea seeking forgiveness for a delay of more than six months in filing an appeal. The applicants attributed the lapse to their earlier representative, claiming he failed to attend hearings or return calls. According to them, they discovered the adverse outcome only after checking the district court’s website.
To bolster their explanation, the applicants relied on WhatsApp messages exchanged months after the suit had already been decided. The Court was unimpressed. It pointed out the conspicuous absence of any communication records from the crucial period when the case was heard and concluded.
The explanation, the judge remarked, raised more questions than answers. If messages from a later period could be produced, there was no clarity on why earlier communications—if they existed—were missing.
The Court also referred to the daily court record, which showed the applicant’s presence during a key hearing when the matter was listed for final arguments. This directly undermined the claim of complete unawareness.
With these inconsistencies on record, the Court found no reasonable basis to excuse the delay and rejected both the application and the appeal that followed.
Beyond the facts of the case, the order carried a broader message. If litigants believe their representative is responsible for procedural failures, the Court said, they must pursue appropriate remedies or at least ensure that the person accused is formally involved in the proceedings. Accepting such claims without hearing the other side would be fundamentally unfair.
In clear terms, the Court cautioned that delay cannot be brushed aside by shifting responsibility—especially when the accusation itself remains untested.
