India is a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. The Republic of India abides by terms of the Constitution of India. The Constitution protects its citizen from any partial judgment. The judiciary system plays an important role as the guardian of the Fundamental Rights and of constitutional provisions. The role of the judiciary complies with the traditional jurisdiction of Civil and Criminal. At the apex of the Indian judiciary system hierarchy stands the prestigious Supreme Court. It acts as the protector against the possible excesses in the legislative and executive body.
In a recent judgment in the instance of the Estate Officer of Haryana UDA (urban development authority) and Anr versus Mr. Gopi Chand Atreja on 12/03/2019, the Supreme Court of India declares that the lawyer is not responsible for any deferral in filing a case.
Filing of a civil case by the Appellants in the Public Court of Trial in Karnal for an obligatory injunction in regards to the land in concern, against the Respondent. It was dictated by the Civil Trial Court judgment on 1st May 2001.
Dissatisfied with the judgment given by the Trial Court, the Appellants made a petition in the court of law of the additional district judge in Karnal. The court dismissed the appeal and maintained the verdict of the Trial Court, dated 7th February 2002. Further, the Appellants filed a subsequent petition in the Hon. HCs of Punjab and Haryana 4 year and 6 months later. A petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, enclosing with a request of pardoning the deferral in submitting the second appeal is justifiable. A rejection by the HC in its judgment on 20th January 2008 on the second application was the result of barring due to limitations. The judgment further declined the request to pardon the delay. Rejection of the re-appeal by the HC was justifiable.
Next was the filing of a distinctive leave of absence requisition by the Appellants in the highest Indian judiciary authority, the SC. The apex court gave its verdict on 12th March 2019. And the High Court gave the correct judgment to decline the application of request to condone the delay. It further mentions that the lawyer will not face grounding for the delay of filing petition in such cases. It is the responsibility of the Petitioners to remind his lawyer for doing the needful regarding the file suit. One may even go for a change of lawyer if he/she fails to do so.
The verdict also cites that the secondary appeal by the Appellants will face rightful dismissal by the HC. The subsequent reasons state the proceedings. First, the deferral was inconsistent. Secondly, no proper clarification was provided to cite the reason for the deferral. Hence, this clearly leads to the fact that it could be avoided. Thirdly, the Claim referring to the 1963’s Limitation Act with Section 5 failed to establish suitable cause for the delay which can be considered by the Indian Jurisdiction Laws.