Delhi HC: Lawyer Cannot Cite ‘Lack of Understanding’ of Sessions Court Order to Justify 1-Year Delay in Appeal

The Delhi High Court in Ajit Kumar Gola vs State (GNCTD) and Anr has clarified that a lawyer cannot justify delay in filing an appeal by claiming difficulty in understanding a lower court order. The Court emphasised that such explanations do not meet the legal requirement of “sufficient cause.”

Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma was hearing a petition filed by a practising advocate who appeared in person. The petitioner challenged a Sessions Court order after a delay of more than one year, seeking condonation of delay.

The petitioner argued that he needed time to understand the Sessions Court’s order. He claimed that he undertook detailed legal research before approaching the High Court, which resulted in the delay.

However, the Court found this reasoning unsatisfactory. It noted that the petitioner himself was a lawyer and was expected to act with reasonable promptness and diligence in pursuing legal remedies.

The Court clearly stated, “The explanation that the petitioner was engaged in understanding the impugned order and conducting legal research in itself cannot be a ground for condoning the delay of about one year.”

It further observed, “Even otherwise, legal research or consultation with other lawyers, even by a practising lawyer is a routine exercise undertaken by a self represented litigant and advocates alike.”

The High Court pointed out that inability to understand a judicial order cannot be treated as a valid justification for prolonged delay. Such reasoning, if accepted, would dilute the meaning of “sufficient cause” required under law.

The Court also examined the petitioner’s conduct during the intervening period. It noted that the application lacked details about specific steps taken, events, or reasons explaining the delay of over one year.

The absence of any concrete explanation or timeline indicated a lack of due diligence. The Court stressed that litigants must act within a reasonable period, even in cases where no strict limitation period is prescribed.

Importantly, the Court observed that the petitioner could have sought assistance from another legal practitioner if he genuinely faced difficulty in understanding the order.

The High Court also clarified that petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must still be filed within a reasonable time, despite the absence of a fixed limitation period.

In conclusion, the Court refused to condone the delay and dismissed the petition. As a result, the challenge to the Sessions Court order also stood rejected.