single judge condoned a delay of 3560 days in filing a restoration petition for a medical negligence suit involving loss of a minor's limb, applying Rafiq to protect an innocent litigant from advocate's inaction.
Delay of 3560 days in filing restoration petition condoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.M.P.No.6979 of 2022
W.M.P.No.6979 of 2022 &
W.P.No.22336 of 2011
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq & Anr vs. Munshilal & Anr, AIR 1980 SC 1400 , it is held that, it is not proper that an innocent litigant, after doing everything in his power to effectively participate in his proceedings by
entrusting his case to the Advocate, should be made to suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission or misdemeanour of his agent. For whatever reason the Advocate might have absented himself from the Court, the innocent litigant could not be allowed to suffer injustice for the fault of his Advocate.
Particularly, the case before us is a medical negligence claiming compensation for the loss of the upper limb of a minor.
Following the above said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the delay of 3560 days in filing the restoration petition is condoned.
18.04.2022
kpr
Note: Registry is directed to number the restoration petition.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a delay of 3560 days in filing a restoration petition can be condoned following the principles in Rafiq case regarding innocent litigants suffering for advocate's default.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rafiq & Anr vs. Munshilal & AnrApplied¶5
AIR 1980 SC 1400 · Who else cites this
M. GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
