Justice Prevails as Court Condones Delay Caused by Counsel's Negligence, Restores Land Dispute Case for Fresh Hearing
In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has set aside previous dismissals in the case of Kabak Bhatt v. Biki Shapiong, restoring a crucial appeal for fresh adjudication. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pranjal Das, underscores the principle that litigants should not suffer due to the negligence or lapses of their legal counsel.
Kabak Bhatt, the petitioner, had initially faced dismissal of his appeal owing to non-appearance by his counsel in the proceedings concerning a land dispute with Ms. Biki Shapiong, his estranged wife. The core issue revolved around the ownership of two plots of land in Arunachal Pradesh, which had been under dispute since the couple's separation in 2010.
The petitioner was previously granted land possession certificates, which were later cancelled following allegations of fraudulent acquisition by the respondent. Subsequent legal battles ensued, including an appeal that was dismissed for default due to the absence of Bhatt's counsel on three critical dates.
In its judgment, the High Court highlighted the jurisprudential precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq v. Munshilal, which establishes that a litigant should not face adverse consequences due to their counsel's default. The court emphasized a justice-oriented approach, noting that adequate cause for delay must be considered, and previous non-appearances should not preclude restoration if satisfactorily explained.
Justice Das's order noted that Bhatt had been unaware of his counsel's lapses and had promptly acted to rectify the situation by engaging a new lawyer. The court, therefore, condoned the 123-day delay in filing for restoration of the appeal and directed the case to be heard afresh.
Moreover, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the jurisdictional District Legal Services Authority, acknowledging the procedural delay caused.
This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding litigant rights and ensuring fair adjudication, especially when procedural lapses by legal representatives could otherwise result in injustice. The restored appeal will be heard by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Yupia, on September 7, 2026.
Bottom Line :
Litigants should not suffer due to the lapses or negligence of their counsel. Courts must adopt a justice-oriented approach in considering applications for condonation of delay and restoration of appeals dismissed for default.
Statutory provision(s): Article 227, Order IX Rule 9, Order XLI Rule 19, Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Kabak Bhatt v. Biki Shapiong, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2956602
