The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a civil revision petition where the petitioner sought to set aside ex parte orders on the ground of her counsel’s negligence. Holding that a litigant cannot shift blame to counsel for her own failure to monitor proceedings, the Court affirmed the trial court’s orders striking off the defence and treating cross-examination as nil. The judgment underscores the duty of parties to remain vigilant in litigation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Manju Rani, filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the petitioner, Pushpa Rani, seeking her eviction from a portion of House No. 60, Street No. 3, Sunil Nagar, Ludhiana, on the ground that the petitioner was a mere licensee therein. The petitioner contended that she is the daughter-in-law of the respondent and that, during the lifetime of her husband Birender Kumar, the parties lived harmoniously; after his death, the respondent’s attitude changed and she commenced harassment.
Key Facts
- The petitioner states she is a housewife and, after the death of her husband, faces financial constraints.
- Upon receiving the summons in the suit, the petitioner engaged counsel, Mr. Jaideep Verma, who assured her that her personal presence was not required and that he would call her as and when needed.
- Despite several attempts, the petitioner could not contact her counsel telephonically and received no response to her messages.
- The learned Trial Court struck off the petitioner’s defence vide order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) for non-filing of the written statement within the stipulated period.
- Thereafter, the Trial Court recorded the evidence of the respondent (Manju Rani) on 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-3). Since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent, the cross-examination was treated as "Nil".
- The matter was adjourned to 20.05.2026 for the remaining plaintiff witnesses and for awaiting the petitioner’s presence.
- The petitioner avers that she had already been proceeded against ex-parte on 20.05.2026, although a copy of that order is not on record.
- On 15.07.2026, the petitioner engaged new counsel who filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to join the proceedings.
Procedural History
- Date of the suit: Not specified in the judgment.
- Date of summons: Not specified.
- Order striking off defence: 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-2).
- Evidence recording and adjournment: 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-3), adjourned to 20.05.2026.
- Ex-parte proceeding: 20.05.2026 (petitioner’s allegation).
- Application to join proceedings: 15.07.2026 (Order 9 Rule 7 CPC).
- Filing of the civil revision petition: After 15.07.2026 and before the judgment date; exact date not mentioned.
- Judgment date: 16.09.2026.
Parties' Positions
- Petitioner (Pushpa Rani): Contended that she is not a mere licensee but has a right to reside in the property; sought to set aside the ex parte orders on the ground of her counsel’s negligence and to be allowed to defend the suit.
- Respondent (Manju Rani): Maintained that the petitioner is a licensee and that the ex parte orders were justified due to the petitioner’s persistent failure to participate in the proceedings despite having knowledge of the suit and access to counsel.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure P-2) striking off her defence.
- Quashing of the order dated 28.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) recording evidence and treating cross-examination as nil.
- Direction to the Trial Court to allow her to join the proceedings and to defend the suit on merits.
- Any further reliefs deemed fit by the Court.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a litigant can obtain relief from ex parte proceedings by attributing the default solely to the negligence of her counsel, or whether the litigant bears an independent duty to monitor the prosecution of the case.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, through counsel Mr. Jaideep Verma, argued that she had relied upon her advocate’s assurance that her personal presence was unnecessary; that the advocate’s failure to appear and to communicate amounted to negligence; and that, under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, she should be permitted to join the proceedings to avoid injustice.
For the Respondent
The respondent submitted that the petitioner, despite being aware of the suit and having engaged counsel, remained completely inactive for over two years; that a litigant is under a bounden duty to remain vigilant about proceedings initiated against her; and that the petitioner cannot shift the blame to her advocate to escape the consequences of her own inaction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting the petitioner’s admission that she had engaged counsel and yet took no independent steps to ascertain the status of the case. It emphasized that the duty to monitor litigation is personal and non-delegable. The Court observed:
"It needs no reiteration that a litigant is under a bounden duty to remain vigilant about proceedings initiated against her, particularly when she herself admits to having engaged a counsel. Petitioner cannot be permitted to shift the entire blame upon her Advocate so as to overcome the consequences of her own inaction."
Further, the Court held that the petitioner’s continuous silence for a period of two years, during which her defence was struck off, the respondent’s cross-examination was treated as nil, and she proceeded ex parte, could not be excused by pointing to counsel’s shortcomings. The Court remarked:
"There is no explanation, much less cogent explanation, to show as to why the petitioner has remained absolutely silent for a period of two years, during which her defence was struck off, the cross-examination of the plaintiff - Manju Rani was treated as "Nil", and she (Pushpa Rani) was further proceeded against ex parte."
The Court also noted that the petitioner offered no justification for her failure to make independent inquiries regarding the case status, even though her counsel was responding to her calls and messages. Consequently, the attempt to place the entire responsibility on the advocate was characterised as an afterthought and a device to circumvent the legal consequences flowing from the petitioner’s own persistent lack of diligence, which the Court declared cannot be countenanced in law.
Applying these principles, the Court found no merit in the petitioner’s ground of counsel negligence and concluded that there was no basis to reopen the case at that stage.
The Verdict
The respondent, Manju Rani, succeeded. The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upheld the orders dated 01.07.2024 and 28.04.2026, and held that the petitioner’s failure to file a written statement and to attend proceedings constituted negligence not attributable to counsel. No costs were awarded and no monetary relief was granted. The petitioner’s application to join the proceedings was refused, and all pending applications stood closed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Litigant’s Duty to Monitor Proceedings
Practitioners must advise clients that personal engagement in litigation is essential; reliance on counsel alone does not satisfy the duty to remain vigilant. Clients should:
- Regularly follow up on case status through counsel and the court.
- File written statements and appear for hearings unless expressly excused.
- Maintain records of all communications with counsel.
Counsel Negligence Not a Ground for Relief
A litigant cannot obtain relief from ex parte orders by blaming counsel for non-appearance or non-communication. Courts will examine whether the litigant took independent steps to monitor the case. If not, the relief will be denied.
Procedural Defaults and Ex Parte Proceedings
Where a defence is struck off for non-filing of a written statement, the litigant must act promptly to remedy the default. Delay of two years, as in this case, is insufficient to warrant setting aside ex parte proceedings, especially when the litigant had knowledge of the suit and access to legal representation.
