Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: J. B. Pardiwala
R. Mahadevan
Judgment Date: 2024-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: Petition dismissed. Delay condoned in respect of the filing of the Special Leave Petition itself; however, the petition is dismissed on the merits since there is no error in the High Court's judgment setting aside the trial court’s order condoning delay in filing the written statement.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed and delay in filing the SLP condoned (for the petition itself)

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nitin Mahadeo Jawale
Others (Jawale et al.)

Respondents

Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rajat Joseph
• Hrishikesh S. Chitaley
• Vijay Kari Singh
• Kaustubh D. Kadasne

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Special Leave Petition, arising from a Bombay High Court order at Aurangabad dismissing a challenge to a trial court order condoning a delay of four-and-a-half years in filing the written statement, centers on the propriety of condoning delay in the written-statement stage. The trial court had permitted belated filing of the written statement; the plaintiff challenged that permission, and the High Court set it aside. The Supreme Court, in a brief order, condoned the delay in filing the SLP itself but rejected the petition, holding that there is no error in the High Court’s conclusion and emphasizing a broader principle: litigants cannot shift blame for delays onto their advocates and evade accountability for their own rights and arbitration proceedings. The Court notes a troubling pattern of litigants blaming counsel for delays and affirms that even if an advocate is negligent, such negligence cannot justify long and inordinate delays. The outcome is that the petition is dismissed, and pending applications, if any, are disposed of. The decision reinforces the obligation of a party to be vigilant about the proceedings initiated at his instance and signals a cautious approach toward condonation of substantial delays in litigation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Limitation Act, 1963

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

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.
A litigant cannot throw the entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any time and seek relief.
Delay cannot be condoned merely because counsel was negligent; personal responsibility remains with the litigant.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1318 : 2024 INSC 902 ## **Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors.** ## **v.** ## **Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke** (SLP (Civil) No. 27824 of 2024) 22 November 2024 **[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]** ## **Issue for Consideration** Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order passed by Trial Court wherein, Trial Court condoned the delay of 4½ Years for filing of written statement. ## **Headnotes[†]** ## **Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether a party may be allowed to file written statement with a delay of 4½ Years:** **Held:** The Court has noticed that the growing tendency on the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of the advocate for the delay – Even if the Court assumes that the advocate 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 – The litigant 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 – The High Court was correct in setting aside the Trial Court’s order – Therefore, the petition fails and is dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8] ## **List of Acts** Limitation Act, 1963. ## **List of Keywords** Condonation of delay; Inordinate delay in filing of written statement; Throwing blame of delay on the head of advocate. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1319 **Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke** ## **Case Arising From** EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27824 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2024 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in WP No. 15056 of 2019 ## **Appearances for Parties** Rajat Joseph, Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Vijay Kari Singh, Kaustubh D. Kadasne, Advs. for the Petitioners ## **Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court** ## **Order** 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. 4. It appears from the materials on record that as the 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. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1320 ## **Digital Supreme Court Reports** 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 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. ## _Result of the case:_ Petition dismissed. - _†Headnotes prepared by: _ Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor ( _Verified by:_ Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)