Litigants cannot shirk duty to pursue cases, appeal dismissed: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that litigants cannot escape responsibility for diligently pursuing their cases by blaming their counsel for repeated dismissals. Dismissing a regular second appeal in a dispute arising from a 26-year-old land deal, Justice Nidhi Gupta held that the explanation furnished by the appellants — that their lawyer failed to inform them — revealed that the matter was pursued “with utmost casualness.”

“It is the bounden duty of every litigant to pursue his case diligently. Rights of the parties get crystallised over time. Thus, it is also the bounden duty of this Court to ensure that justice inures to both parties concerned,” the Bench observed, while adding that restoring the matter at this stage would cause “grave injustice to the respondents.”

The appellants had originally filed a civil suit on November 25, 2010, seeking a declaration that they were co-owners of the suit property. They also sought a declaration that a General Power of Attorney (GPA) registered on September 14, 1999, the subsequent sale deed dated February 17, 2000, and a mutation dated January 23, 2008, were illegal, null, and void. They further sought possession and a permanent injunction.

The suit, however, was dismissed in default on July 13, 2016. An application for restoration of the suit, filed on July 19, 2016, met the same fate when it was dismissed in default on April 15, 2017. A subsequent application for setting aside this order, filed on July 21, 2017, was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Kharar, on May 18, 2018.

Challenging this, the appellants moved the Additional District Judge, Mohali, by way of civil appeal. That, too, was dismissed on January 31, 2024, on the ground of non-maintainability. The appellants then approached the High Court in revision, but their plea was again rejected on October 24, 2024.

In the present proceedings, the appellants sought to revive their case by attributing blame to their counsel for non-pursuit. Justice Gupta, however, rejected the plea, holding: “The reason given by the appellants for recurrent dismissal of their proceedings is by placing the entire blame upon their counsel, which is not sufficient cause. It is my view that grave injustice will be caused to the respondents in case the matter is restored at this belated stage.”

Concluding that “no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned orders,” the Court dismissed the regular second appeal along with pending applications.