Court emphasizes litigants' duty to remain vigilant and substantiates allegations with evidence; dismisses appeal over 203-day delay.
Mumbai, January 19, 2026 - In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court, presided by Justice Jitendra Jain, dismissed a civil application for condonation of a 203-day delay in filing a first appeal. The case, "Rahul Sambhu Kabade v. Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur," centered around allegations against the applicant's advocate for purported negligence in handling the case.
The applicant, Rahul Sambhu Kabade, represented by advocates Mr. Nikhil Adkine and Mr. Swaroop Godbole, sought to condone the delay by attributing it to the initial advocate's failure to attend to the matter and lack of communication. The applicant claimed to have lost trust in the advocate and subsequently filed an appeal through a different counsel.
However, the court underscored the necessity for substantial material evidence to support such allegations and emphasized that the advocate should have been made a party to the proceedings if accused of negligence. Justice Jain noted that accepting such claims without hearing the implicated advocate or having concrete evidence would be inappropriate.
Mr. J.K. Shah, representing the respondents, argued that the applicant had not initiated any disciplinary actions against the advocate and failed to present evidence, such as call data records, to substantiate the claims. The court observed that the applicant's reliance on WhatsApp chats was insufficient, as the chats pertained to a later period and did not include crucial dates.
Justice Jain referenced the Supreme Court's stance, as seen in "Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash," which criticized the growing trend of litigants blaming their lawyers for delays without due diligence. The judgment emphasized that litigants must remain vigilant about their proceedings and cannot solely attribute delays to advocates without evidence.
Additionally, the court rejected the request for interim relief, noting that no stay order had been in effect since March 2020, and the conditions for such relief were not met.
The ruling serves as a reminder for litigants to maintain diligence in their legal matters and underscores the importance of evidence in substantiating claims against legal representatives.
Bottom Line:
Condonation of delay - Allegations against advocate for negligence need to be substantiated with adequate material, and the advocate should be made a party in proceedings if such allegations are made.
Statutory provision(s): Condonation of Delay, Practice and Procedure, Interim Relief
Rahul Sambhu Kabade v. Subhashsingh Surajsingh Thakur, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc id # 2841424
