NITIN MAHADEO JAWALE & ORS. versus BHASKAR MAHADEO MUTKE
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1318, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Issues
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1318 : 2024 INSC 902
Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. 
v. 
Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke 
(SLP (Civil) No. 27824 of 2024)
22 November 2024
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside the order 
passed by Trial Court wherein, Trial Court condoned the delay of 
4½ Years for filing of written statement.
Headnotes†
Limitation Act, 1963 – Whether a party may be allowed to file 
written statement with a delay of 4½ Years:
Held: The Court has noticed that the growing tendency on the 
part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of 
the advocate for the delay – Even if the Court assumes that the 
advocate was careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a 
ground to condone long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a 
duty to be vigilant of his own rights and is expected to be equally 
vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated 
at his instance – The litigant should not be permitted to throw the 
entire blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him 
at any time and seek relief – The High Court was correct in setting 
aside the Trial Court’s order – Therefore, the petition fails and is 
dismissed. [Paras 6, 7, 8]
List of Acts
Limitation Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Condonation of delay; Inordinate delay in filing of written statement; 
Throwing blame of delay on the head of advocate.
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1319
Nitin Mahadeo Jawale & Ors. v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke
Case Arising From
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition for 
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 27824 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in WP No. 15056 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Rajat Joseph, Hrishikesh S. Chitaley, Vijay Kari Singh, Kaustubh 
D. Kadasne, Advs. for the Petitioners
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
1.	
Delay condoned.
2.	
This petition arises from the Order passed by the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.15056 
of 2019 dated 12th April, 2024 by which the High Court allowed the 
petition filed by the original plaintiff (respondent no.1 herein) and 
thereby set aside the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior 
Division, Jamkhed condoning the delay of 4½ years in filing the 
written statement.
3.	
The petitioners herein are the original defendants and respondent 
no.1 herein is the original plaintiff.
4.	
It appears from the materials on record that as the defendants failed 
to file their written statement in time the stage to file written statement 
was closed. Thereafter permission of the Trial Court was prayed for 
to file the written statement after a period of over 4½ years. The 
Trial Court permitted the defendants to file their written statement. 
The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the same challenged the order 
passed by the
Trial Court permitting the defendants to file written 
statement after a period of 4½ years. The High Court allowed the 
petition and set aside the order passed by the trial court.
5.	
We find no error not to speak of any error of law in the impugned 
judgment passed by the High Court.
1320
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
6.	
We have noticed over a period of time the growing tendency on 
the part of the litigants in throwing the entire blame on the head of 
the advocate. Not only this, we have come across cases where the 
concerned advocate has filed an affidavit in favour of his client(s) 
saying that he was unable to attend the proceedings due to some 
personal reasons difficulties thereby facilitating the litigant to get the 
delay condoned.
7.	
Even if we assume for a moment that the concerned lawyer was 
careless or negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a ground to condone 
long and inordinate delay as the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant 
of his own rights and is expected to be equally vigilant about the 
judicial proceedings pending in the court initiated at his instance. 
8.	
The litigant, therefore, should not be permitted to throw the entire 
blame on the head of the advocate and thereby disown him at any 
time and seek relief. 
9.	
In view of the aforesaid, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
10.	 Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Petition dismissed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Gaurav Upadhyay, Hony. Associate Editor 
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)