The Delhi High Court on Friday issued a suo moto contempt notice and imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakh on a 84-year-old litigant for abusing the process of law..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Valmiki J. Mehta exhibited its no-nonsense approach to wasting the court’s time in Bachan Singh Kumar vs. State and Ors. .The octagenarian appellant had moved an application to recall an earlier order of the Court passed in February 2014, which had disposed off the appeals and granted him three years’ time to vacate the property which was the subject matter of the suit..The applicant claimed that his earlier counsel, N Prabhakar, had cheated and defrauded him by failing to inform his client that the appeals in the case had been disposed of. He also claimed that he was not aware of the contents of the affidavit in the undertaking to vacate the premises. Singh also stated that he has lodged a complaint against the lawyer with the Bar Council..However, Justice Mehta was having none of it, and sprung to the defence of the lawyer in question..“This Court knows that it is Kalyug. Not only it is Kalyug we are at a deep end in Kalyug. In such age and time surely it is not inconvenient and unknown for litigants to make totally false allegations against an earlier counsel that the applicant/appellant was not properly informed…This Court does not accept anything else from dishonest litigants and who would go to any lengths to take favourable orders from the courts..…I refuse to believe that a litigant who has contested the case before the court below as also this Court, and who is admittedly not illiterate in any sense of the term, and that too being around 80 years of age when the order dated 25.2.2014 was passed, did not know the contents of the order…”.Justice Mehta also noted that the status of cases pending in the High Court was available online 24×7 and 365 days a year..The Court also commented on the convenient timing of moving such an application..“This Court rejects completely the case that the applicant/appellant did not know the contents of the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 when the appellant/applicant signed the same, and which stand as stated above is only conveniently stated now in 2017 for filing of the present applications, and when time to vacate the suit premises has expired on 31.12.2016.”.Notwithstanding the age of the litigant, Justice Mehta was prompted to issue a contempt notice against him..“The facts of the present case persuade me to issue a notice of contempt against the applicant/appellant in spite of the fact that today the applicant/appellant is 84 years of age because it is high time that irrespective of age gross dishonesty is taken note of and acted upon strongly by this Court.”.Finally, Justice Mehta stated that it was high time that courts should send out a very strong message to dishonest litigants by imposing heaviest of costs..“In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present applications being an abuse of the process of law, and which also unfairly and most maliciously target the earlier Advocate who had appeared for the applicant/appellant for almost 6 years…and only essentially because the appellant/applicant wants to dishonestly and malafidely withdraw from the order dated 25.2.2014 and the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 duly signed by the appellant/applicant, hence these applications are dismissed with costs of Rs.2 lacs…”.The Court was also miffed with the fact that the applicant engaged Senior Advocate Raman Kapur to argue the “dishonest” applications..“If the applicant/appellant has money to engage a new advocate that also a Senior advocate to argue the present dishonest applications seeking recall of the order dated 25.2.2014, then it is high time that courts should send out a very strong message to dishonest litigants by imposing heaviest of costs.”.Read the Order:
The Delhi High Court on Friday issued a suo moto contempt notice and imposed costs of Rs. 2 lakh on a 84-year-old litigant for abusing the process of law..The Single Judge Bench of Justice Valmiki J. Mehta exhibited its no-nonsense approach to wasting the court’s time in Bachan Singh Kumar vs. State and Ors. .The octagenarian appellant had moved an application to recall an earlier order of the Court passed in February 2014, which had disposed off the appeals and granted him three years’ time to vacate the property which was the subject matter of the suit..The applicant claimed that his earlier counsel, N Prabhakar, had cheated and defrauded him by failing to inform his client that the appeals in the case had been disposed of. He also claimed that he was not aware of the contents of the affidavit in the undertaking to vacate the premises. Singh also stated that he has lodged a complaint against the lawyer with the Bar Council..However, Justice Mehta was having none of it, and sprung to the defence of the lawyer in question..“This Court knows that it is Kalyug. Not only it is Kalyug we are at a deep end in Kalyug. In such age and time surely it is not inconvenient and unknown for litigants to make totally false allegations against an earlier counsel that the applicant/appellant was not properly informed…This Court does not accept anything else from dishonest litigants and who would go to any lengths to take favourable orders from the courts..…I refuse to believe that a litigant who has contested the case before the court below as also this Court, and who is admittedly not illiterate in any sense of the term, and that too being around 80 years of age when the order dated 25.2.2014 was passed, did not know the contents of the order…”.Justice Mehta also noted that the status of cases pending in the High Court was available online 24×7 and 365 days a year..The Court also commented on the convenient timing of moving such an application..“This Court rejects completely the case that the applicant/appellant did not know the contents of the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 when the appellant/applicant signed the same, and which stand as stated above is only conveniently stated now in 2017 for filing of the present applications, and when time to vacate the suit premises has expired on 31.12.2016.”.Notwithstanding the age of the litigant, Justice Mehta was prompted to issue a contempt notice against him..“The facts of the present case persuade me to issue a notice of contempt against the applicant/appellant in spite of the fact that today the applicant/appellant is 84 years of age because it is high time that irrespective of age gross dishonesty is taken note of and acted upon strongly by this Court.”.Finally, Justice Mehta stated that it was high time that courts should send out a very strong message to dishonest litigants by imposing heaviest of costs..“In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present applications being an abuse of the process of law, and which also unfairly and most maliciously target the earlier Advocate who had appeared for the applicant/appellant for almost 6 years…and only essentially because the appellant/applicant wants to dishonestly and malafidely withdraw from the order dated 25.2.2014 and the affidavit of undertaking dated 18.3.2014 duly signed by the appellant/applicant, hence these applications are dismissed with costs of Rs.2 lacs…”.The Court was also miffed with the fact that the applicant engaged Senior Advocate Raman Kapur to argue the “dishonest” applications..“If the applicant/appellant has money to engage a new advocate that also a Senior advocate to argue the present dishonest applications seeking recall of the order dated 25.2.2014, then it is high time that courts should send out a very strong message to dishonest litigants by imposing heaviest of costs.”.Read the Order:
