Litigant Can't Claim Ignorance Of Case Status When Court Records Are Online: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a litigant cannot claim he was unable to check the status of his case when court records, order sheets and judgments are available online. A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Aditi Choudhary said that in the age of the internet, with online case status, video-conferencing facilities for appearing in courts and judgments uploaded on court websites, litigants are in a better position to follow up their cases.
The court was hearing an appeal by a man whose application to set aside an ex-parte judgment had been dismissed. The respondent, a supplier of fertilisers and agricultural products, had sued him for recovery of Rs. 12,24,939 with interest and costs for goods supplied on credit.
According to the facts, the appellant received summons on January 22, 2024, and appeared in person before the Trial Court on January 25, 2024, without his counsel. He did not file a written statement within thirty days, and his right to do so was closed. Evidence was later recorded by a Local Commissioner without the appellant cross-examining the witnesses, and an ex-parte judgment was pronounced on November 26, 2024.
The appellant then filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure on January 20, 2025, blaming his counsel for not answering his calls or informing him about hearings. The District Judge (Commercial Court), North District, Rohini, dismissed the application on August 07, 2025, holding that he could have checked the court website, approached a Computer Service Centre, or visited the court. The appellant challenged this order under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The High Court noted that the appellant had personally appeared in the Trial Court without his counsel, so he must have been aware of these facilities. It also observed that since he ran his own proprietorship firm and was concerned about his CIBIL score, he could be presumed capable of protecting his interests. His argument that he was afraid to approach a Computer Service Centre because knowledge of the litigation would affect his CIBIL score was rejected.
Applying earlier judgments, including Salil Duttav v. T.M. and M.C. Private Ltd. (1993) 2 SCC 185, Rajneesh Kumar and Another v. Ved Prakash 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3380 and Nitin Mahadeo Jawale and others v. Bhaskar Mahadeo Mutke 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3468, the court held that a litigant cannot disown his advocate at any time and must remain vigilant even if the lawyer is negligent.
The Bench said the appellant's claim that his counsel was negligent, did not inform him about the matter and did not answer his calls was too vague and lacked material particulars to be accepted as sufficient cause for his non-appearance. It found no mention of when he tried to contact counsel, and no explanation for his absence on November 23 and 26, 2024, or for how he came to know of the judgment. The court concluded that he was not diligent in pursuing the case against him. Advocate Neeraj Kumar Singh appeared for the appellant and Advocate Sarthak Ahuja appeared for the respondent.
Source: Verdictum