Victim of Irresponsible Advocate: High Court Restores Appeals in Real Estate Dispute

Punjab and Haryana High Court criticizes non-appearance of petitioner’s counsel and sets aside multiple dismissal orders, directing Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals on merits.

In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reinstated appeals previously dismissed by the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, due to non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel. The court highlighted the negligent conduct of legal representatives as a significant factor in the petitioner’s plight. This decision allows the petitioner, Komal Gupta, to seek justice in her real estate dispute concerning units booked in the Chandigarh City Centre project.

Komal Gupta had booked two commercial units in the Chandigarh City Centre project and filed a complaint with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Punjab, against the developer for various grievances. The complaint was dismissed by RERA on June 18, 2021. Subsequent appeals and applications for restoration and review were also dismissed due to non-appearance of Gupta’s counsel.

Irresponsible Counsel: The court noted that Gupta had been diligent in following her case but was let down by her counsel. The Tribunal had repeatedly dismissed her appeals and applications due to the absence of representation. In one instance, the Appellate Authority remarked, “Evidently, the applicant has scant respect for the proceedings of the Court as his repeated default in appearance would demonstrate”​​.

Petitioner’s Diligence: Gupta maintained that she had been in constant touch with her counsel, who misled her about the status of her appeals. Given her circumstances, including her husband’s army postings, she relied on telephonic assurances from her counsel, which ultimately resulted in her appeals being dismissed for non-prosecution.

The High Court critically analyzed the sequence of non-appearances by Gupta’s counsel and found it unjust to penalize her for the apparent negligence and misconduct of her legal representatives. The court stated, "The interest of justice demands that the clock be put back so that the petitioner can be heard on merits"​​.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal observed, “The appellant appears to be a victim of irresponsible professionals who either by design or sheer negligence have caused incalculable harm to the appellant’s cause”​​.

The High Court's decision to restore Gupta's appeals underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair legal processes and the right to be heard. The judgment has significant implications, highlighting the responsibilities of legal professionals and the judiciary's role in safeguarding litigants' interests against professional misconduct.

Date of Decision: May 6, 2024