Deewan Singh Bohra Vs Suresh Chandra (Uttarakhand High Court)
The Uttarakhand High Court considered an application for condonation of a 226-day delay in filing a civil revision against an eviction and rent-arrears decree in SCC Case No. 19 of 2017. The revisionist attributed the delay to assurances allegedly given by advocate Dushyant Mainali that the revision and a stay application had been filed. The revisionist relied on paragraphs 5, 6 and 11 of his affidavit, stating that his age and ill health had prevented regular visits to Nainital and that he learned only in March 2022 that no revision had been filed. The High Court considered the explanations and the respondent’s objections.
The High Court condoned the 226-day delay and directed listing of the revision at the admission stage. It also made adverse remarks against the advocate and directed reference to the Uttarakhand Bar Council for disciplinary action. On 25 November 2024, the Supreme Court in Dushyant Mainali Vs Diwan Singh Bora & Anr. expunged the specified adverse observations and disciplinary directions because the advocate had not been heard. The High Court’s separate direction condoning the delay was not set aside.
Subsequent judicial development: The Supreme Court order dated 25 November 2024 expunged the specified adverse observations and directions concerning the advocate. The original High Court order is reproduced below as a historical court record, not as a statement that the expunged findings remain operative.
Cases Discussed
No earlier judicial precedent is expressly cited in the supplied High Court order. Subsequent Supreme Court decision: Dushyant Mainali Vs Diwan Singh Bora & Anr., order dated 25 November 2024, arising from SLP(C) No. 15191/2022. For the principle concerning adverse remarks against advocates, see Neeraj Garg Vs Sarita Rani & Ors. (contextual reference, not cited by the High Court).
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sah, Advocate for the respondent.
The petitioner before this Court is a defendant. in an SCC suit proceedings which was held by way of SCC Case No. 19 of 2017, Suresh Chandra Vs. Deewan Singh Bohra. The suit was decreed by the judgement of 03.08.2019. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment passed by the Judge, Small Causes Court, whereby a decree of an eviction and recovery of arrears of rent was rendered against the present revisionist. This revision was preferred on 03.08.2019 accompanied with a delay condonation application preferred by the revisionist where the reason for delay has been more appropriately described in paragraph 5, 6 and 11 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, which is extracted hereunder:-
“5. That after receiving the certified copy of the order dated 03.08.2019 as well as the decree dated 13.08.2019 the counsel of the trial court Shri. Manoj Bhatt advised the deponent /revisionist to challenge the impugned judgement and decree by way of filing revision before the Hon’ble High Court therefore the wife of the deponent contacted Shri. Dushyant Mainali Advocate High Court at his office at Haldwani and instructed him to file a revision against the impugned judgement dated 03.082019 and decree dated 13.08.2019 before the Hon’ble High Court and paid all the before the Hon’ble High Court and paid all the necessary expenses and the requisite fee of the counsel after handing over the entire record of the case to Shri. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate High Court and the wife of the deponent also informed him that the deponent is suffering from asthma and due to his old age he could not come to Nainital regularly and Shri. Dushyant Mainali Advocate made a promise to the wife of the deponent that he will file the aforesaid revision against the impugned judgement and decree dated 03.08.2019 and 13.08.2019 as such after the assurance so given by Shri Dushyant Mainali to the wife of deponent, the deponent as communicated to him the same by her wife was under the hope that his advocate will file the aforesaid revision within time and will take necessary stay order from the High Court.
6. That several times the deponent made an enquiry telephonically from his advocate above named i.e. Shri Dushyant Mainali about the matter but he assured and convinced the deponent that the aforesaid revision has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court but the said revision could not be listed for final hearing due to COVID -19 and the stay order so obtained in the revision so filed by the advocate of the deponent Shri. Dushyant Mainali against the impugned judgement and decree dated 03.08.2019 has been produced before the Judge S.C.C. in S.C.C Case No. 19 of 2019 “Suresh Chandra V/s Diwan Singh Bora.”
11. That there was no communication about the progress of the case from the side of the advocate of the deponent i.e. Shri Dushyant Mainali and when on 29.03.2022 the facts came to the knowledge of the deponent about the issuance of Parwana for handing over the possession then on 30.03.2022 the deponent came to Nainital and enquired the matter regarding filing of the aforesaid Civil Revision wherein he came to know that no aforesaid Civil Revision has been filed by Shri. Dushyant Mainali against the impugned judgement and decree before the Hon’ble High Court till today. The deponent is an old and illiterate person and is suffering from asthma thereby when it came to the knowledge of the deponent that no revision has been filed by the advocate engaged by him Shri Dushyant Mainali since 2019 therefore the deponent was shocked by the conduct of his advocate toward the deponent.”
Though, at this stage, it would be too premature to record any statement with regards to the conduct of the counsel, whose name has been specifically referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, because that would be exclusively a subject matter to be decided by the registering body of the counsel concerned i.e. the Uttarakhand Bar Council, because no professional registered with the Bar Council could be permitted to take liberty and play foul with a litigant by giving a wrongful understanding of taking the brief! informing the client that he has filed the case! thereafter informing him that he has got a stay order in his favour! thereafter making a statement that the stay order has been filed before the executing court! All these statements are per se apparently false because there is no prior pending revision, than the one at hand which has been instituted and there is no reason to disbelief the grounds taken by the revisionist in the delay condonation application of the Assurances extended by the counsel Mr Dushyant Manali. This false assurance extended by counsel for the revisionist as per the opinion of this court is of the view is tentatively and apparently true would amount to be a professional misconduct for which this Court is taking a suo moto cognizance and referring the matter to the bar council to draw an appropriate proceedings disciplinary against the counsel concerned for wrongful extension of information to the litigant due to which the revision had preferred the revision at a belated stage, when the revisionist faced the order passed by the executing court in pursuance to the impugned decree which has been put to challenge in the present revision.
The Bar Council is directed to proceed strictly in accordance with the procedures governing with the disciplinary proceedings of the bar council as well as under the provisions of the Advocates act. Having apparently considered the reasons which has been given in the delay condonation application, logically this Court is of the view that any litigant blindfoldedly relies upon the statement given by the counsel and he acts upon that and in all the circumstances, it is not necessary that the said communication made by the counsel to the client has had to be in writing. In that eventuality, prima facie and so far as the revisionist is concerned individually, he cannot be held responsible for delayed filing of a revision when the revisionist counsel Mr. Dushyant Mainali has duped him by making a false statement, which was bonafidely believed by the revisionist. In that eventuality, this court directs the Registrar General of this Court to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Uttarakhand to draw and appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the professional misconduct on part of Mr. Dushyant Mainali and to conduct and conclude the proceedings against him within a period of six months from today and report back to this Court of decision taken.
Having considered the reasons given in the delay condonation application and also after considering the objection raised by the respondent to the delay condonation application, particularly in the context of the reply given to paragraph 5, 6, 11 and 14, the contents of which, have not been specifically denied and quite logically too, because the grounds taken in paragraph 5, 6, 11 and 14 may not be within the knowledge of the deponent who has objected the delay condonation application, but, still the petitioner cannot be held to be exclusively responsible for belated filing of the revision. In that eventuality, the delay which has chanced in preferring the revision with the delay of 226 days, would hereby stand condoned.
The revision is directed to be listed next week for hearing at admission stage immediately after fresh.
