Dismissal of Delayed Second Appeal Stresses Litigants' Responsibility. Importance of Justifying Delays Emphasized. Costs Imposed.

Kanta Versus Manjulabai

Kanta Versus Manjulabai - TMI Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing the second appeal after a 20-year delay.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court dealt with an application for condonation of delay in filing a second appeal, where the delay was a significant 20 years. The Court emphasized that while the quantum of delay is a relevant factor, it is not the sole determinant in deciding such applications. The burden lies on the party seeking condonation to provide a plausible explanation for the delay. In this case, the applicant claimed that her advocate failed to inform her about the outcome of the litigation, leading to the delay. However, the Court noted that the applicant did not proactively contact her advocate to inquire about the case progress, which is expected from a diligent litigant. The Court highlighted that a litigant cannot simply entrust the matter to an advocate and then absolve themselves of any responsibility.

Moreover, the Court expressed disapproval towards the applicant making allegations against the advocate without involving them in the proceedings. The Court found the reasons provided by the applicant for the delay to be insufficient and viewed the application as an attempt to seek discretionary relief without a proper explanation for the delay. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay and imposed costs on the applicant to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee within a specified timeframe. As a result of the dismissal of the application, the second appeal was also dismissed by the Court.