K.B. Lal (Krishna Bahadur Lal) vs. Gyanendra Pratap & Ors.
Background
A property in Barabanki, Uttar Pradesh was sold twice in 2006: first from one owner to another, and then on to the appellant. The respondents, claiming to be the rightful owners under a 1997 will, filed a civil suit in 2006 to cancel the first sale deed and impleaded the appellant as a defendant. The trial court proceeded ex parte against the appellant in 2006 after he failed to contest. The appellant claimed he only learned of this in 2011 but did not apply to set aside the ex parte order until 2017, a delay of about 14 years, and his applications were rejected by the trial court, the revisional court, and finally the Allahabad High Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant had given a satisfactory explanation for the 14-year delay in seeking to reopen the case. It found his explanations, that his lawyers were negligent, unconvincing, particularly since he admitted knowing about the ex parte order since 2011 but still waited years before acting. The Court reiterated established principles on condonation of delay: courts must weigh both parties' interests, be alert to concocted or fanciful explanations, and not let a liberal approach to delay become an excuse for litigants who are themselves negligent. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of all three lower forums and dismissed the appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Simply blaming one's own lawyer, without more, is not a sufficient excuse for years of delay in pursuing a legal remedy: litigants are expected to stay reasonably vigilant about their own cases, and courts will not indefinitely excuse inaction, however sympathetic the underlying property claim may seem.