Topic
The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a litigant cannot avoid responsibility for non-appearance by blaming counsel’s negligence under CPC Order 9 Rule 7. The ruling reinforces the duty of parties to actively monitor their cases, affecting litigants who rely solely on counsel for case updates.
Bombay HC rules that a client cannot be penalized for delays caused by counsel's abandonment, holding it as a bona fide 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court imposed costs on the errant counsel while condoning a 19-month delay, reinforcing the advocate's duty of diligence and the client's right to justice.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that delays in filing applications to set aside ex parte decrees due to counsel’s negligence cannot automatically bar relief, especially when the underlying dispute involves serious allegations of forgery. The judgment emphasizes that courts must examine the merits of the case before dismissing applications on procedural grounds, protecting litigants from being victimized by their advocates’ failures.