Smt. Shakuntala vs Smt. Pallavi (2025:Rj-Jd:17254)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10982 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10982 Raj
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Shakuntala vs Smt. Pallavi (2025:Rj-Jd:17254) on 3 April, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:17254]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                     S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 589/2025

1.       Smt. Shakuntala W/o Shri Khemraj, Aged About 60 Years,
         R/o   Plot No.         398, Near Police Station                Sardarpura,
         Sardarpura C Road, Jodhpur (Raj), Presently Residing At
         86, Flat No. 101, Parshvnath Colony, Nirman Nagar,
         Jaipur (Raj)
2.       Khemraj S/o Shri Lalchand, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Plot
         No. 398, Near Police Station Sardarpura, Sardarpura C
         Road, Jodhpur (Raj), Presently Residing At 86, Flat No.
         101, Parshvnath Colony, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                        Versus
Smt. Pallavi W/o Shri Akash, R/o House No.67, Dev Nagar, Pal
Link Road, Jodhpur (Raj)
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)               :    Mr. C.P. Soni.
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Shreyansh Bhandari.



               HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

03/04/2025

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

01.10.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.4, Jodhpur

Metropolitan in Civil Misc. Case No.125/2021 whereby the

application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151, CPC and

Section 5 of the Limitation Act as filed on behalf of the plaintiffs

was dismissed.

2. The application was filed on behalf of the plaintiffs with three

averments: firstly, they had not received back their file from

counsel Mr. Naveen Bhandari; secondly, they had never instructed

counsel Mr. Dharmendra Surana to appear on their behalf; and

[2025:RJ-JD:17254] (2 of 4) [CMA-589/2025]

thirdly, they were not aware of order dated 11.10.2019 as they

did not reside in Jodhpur and did not travel to Jodhpur frequently.

3. The learned Trial Court while rejecting the application found

all the three grounds as raised by the plaintiffs to be not tenable.

4. The learned Trial Court specifically observed that firstly, none

of the lawyers on whom the allegation was levelled by the

plaintiffs had been impleaded. Secondly, no fact or document

whatsoever was placed on record to show that any complaint was

filed or any action against the said lawyers was taken by the

plaintiffs. Thirdly, it is the same lawyer who was representing the

plaintiffs in the criminal proceedings who had put in appearance

on 11.09.2019 and prayed for time to file Vakalatnama. Fourthly,

the plaintiffs remained present before the Court of Additional Civil

Judge No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan on 21.09.2019 in some criminal

proceeding and even on certain other dates in the said case and

hence, the fact that they are not the frequent travellers to Jodhpur

was also found to be incorrect.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that counsel

Mr. Naveen Bhandari who was engaged by the plaintiffs, did not

inform them before making a statement before the Court. Further,

there was nothing available on record to show that counsel

Mr. Dharmendra Surana was instructed by the plaintiffs to put in

appearance on their behalf.

6. Counsel submits that counsel Mr. Naveen Bhandari was

under an obligation to serve a notice on the plaintiffs before

pleading 'no instructions'. The same being not done, it cannot be

presumed that plaintiffs were aware of order dated 11.10.2019 on

which date, the Court dismissed the suit in default.

[2025:RJ-JD:17254] (3 of 4) [CMA-589/2025]

7. Per contra counsel for the respondent while supporting the

order impugned submits that the same does not deserve

interference.

8. Heard the counsels and perused the order impugned.

9. In the specific opinion of this Court, the findings as recorded

by the learned Trial Court are totally in consonance with law as

well as the material available on record.

10. As observed by the learned Trial Court, a party cannot be

permitted to blame the lawyers for his/her negligence without

there being any proof of the same.

11. The Court relied upon the judgment of Orissa High Court in

Shankerlal Patwari vs. Jagannath Mahaprabhu & Ors. I.A.

No.348/2019 (decided on 29.09.2023) wherein, it was observed

as under:

"7....

It is very easy to change lawyer and to put blame on the earlier lawyer for his/her negligence, but the Court cannot turn a blind eye to the surrounding circumstances, eventualities and most importantly, the conducts of the party before it marches on to believe the allegations leveled by the party against his advocate as a gospel truth. Moreover, the concerned lawyer has not been made as a party in this case and thus, it is not fair on our part to pass any order against the conduct of the lawyer without hearing him."

12. In the present matter, what is evident is that on 11.09.2019,

counsel Mr. Naveen Bhandari who was representing the plaintiffs

made a specific submission before the learned Trial Court that he

had handed over the brief back to the plaintiffs and hence had no

further instructions. On the same date, other counsel

Mr. Dharmendra Surana put in appearance and undertook to file

vakalatnama on the next date.

[2025:RJ-JD:17254] (4 of 4) [CMA-589/2025]

13. The version/averment of the plaintiffs to the extent that

counsel Mr. Dharmendra Surana was not instructed by them

cannot be termed to be correct as it is evident on record that it is

the same counsel who was representing the plaintiffs in the