Observing that litigants must be vigilant and follow the progress of their cases personally, the Madras High Court has said they cannot shift the blame on their lawyers and accuse them of having failed to keep them informed of the developments in the cases.
Justice M.V. Muralidaran made the observation while dismissing a civil revision petition filed by two litigants who had challenged an order passed by a Sub-Court at Bhavani in Erode district on December 17, 2010 refusing to condone a delay of 1,600 days in preferring an application to set aside an ex-parte decree.
The judge held that the Sub-Court had rightly refused to condone the delay since the petitioners, N. Sengottaiyan and S. Shanmugam, had not given any plausible reason for such a delay but for stating that they were of the impression that the suit was pending trial since their lawyer had kept them in the dark about the ex-parte decree.
“The parties ought to be vigilant in court proceedings and it is the duty of the parties to conduct the case and contact their advocate properly. In this case, the petitioners have stated that they approached their counsel but they were informed that the case is pending.
“It is the bounden duty of the petitioners that they should appear before the court regularly without absenting themselves and verify the status of the case. Therefore, the reason given by the petitioners is not acceptable one and the order of dismissal passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, does not warrant any interference by this court,” he said.
The ex-parte decree had been obtained by a mother and daughter cancelling a sale deed executed by the former’s husband in favour of the present petitioners with respect to 10 cents of land, for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakh, on the ground that the executor was an alcoholic and had sold the property without the consent of the women.
The petitioners had contended before the Sub-Court that the executor’s wife had signed the sale deed as one of the witnesses, and subsequently made false claims to get back the property. However, when the suit was posted for trial in January 2003, the petitioners did not appear, leading to passing of an ex-parte decree.
They reportedly came to know of the decree only in 2007, and immediately filed an application for setting aside the decree after condoning the delay of around four years. The application was dismissed in 2010 and hence the present revision.
