Needless hypersensitivity not expected of judicial officers: Delhi High Court sets aside ₹5 lakh costs

The Delhi High Court recently opined that unwarranted and needless hypersensitivity is not expected of judicial officers, who are otherwise expected at all times to maintain composure and poise [Suchit Gupta v. Gaurav Saini & Anr]..Justice C Hari Shankar had a word of caution for a “fairly young” judicial officer holding the post of an additional rent controller (ARC), who had imposed ₹5 lakh costs against a man for “misusing process of law” after having obtained an eviction order but not getting it executed.“This Court unequivocally expresses its discomfiture at the manner in which the impugned order has come to be passed. In order that the career of the learned ARC, who appears to be a fairly young Judicial Officer, is not prejudiced, I deem it appropriate to close this matter by setting aside the impugned order insofar as it imposes costs of ₹5 lacs to the petitioner, with a word of advice to the learned ARC to ensure that, in future, a great degree of temperance is exhibited by him in discharge of his judicial functions,” the judge noted..The petitioner had obtained an eviction order in his favour from the predecessor of the present ARC on November 4, 2019. The petitioner subsequently applied for the execution of the eviction order, following which warrants for possession were directed to be issued by the ARC on March 22, 2022.Consequently, the bailiff visited the premises of the respondents on April 11, 2022, when he was informed by one of the respondents that the petitioner had allowed him two months’ time to vacate the premises. Noting the stated fact, the bailiff filed a report before the court of the ARC..The ARC, on the other hand, without mincing his words, expressed displeasure in his April 21 order that after having got warrants of possession issued, owing to which the bailiff had to visit the premises of the respondents in order to ensure their eviction, the petitioner nonetheless granted the respondents two months’ time to vacate.The ARC had noted that though time was granted by the petitioner voluntarily, when he visited the premises of the respondents with the bailiff, his conduct indicated that “he wanted to put pressure upon the judgment debtors by getting the warrants of possession issued from the Court”..This, according to him, amounted to an abuse of process of law and caused great loss to the government exchequer for the bailiff and the police officials who had to spare time from their other official duties in order to get the warrants of possession executed.The ARC also characterised the same as “a classic case" of "abuse of process of law and Government machinery” by the decree holder with an intention to harass and intimidate the judgment debtors..Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioner argued there was no need for the ARC to express such disapproval as the respondents had pleaded for time to vacate the premises as they were using it for commercial purposes.He submitted that the "grace shown” by the petitioner in allowing the respondents time resulted in him suffering ₹5 lakh costs by the ARC..The High Court found no justification for the ARC to take exception to the petitioner allowing the respondents to continue in the tenanted premises for two more months.“It is not as though the petitioner had earlier granted time to the respondents and, concealing the said fact, had got warrants of possession issued. At the time when warrants of possession were issued, the respondents had not asked for any further time to continue in the premises. It was only when the petitioner visited the premises with the bailiff that the respondents pleaded for further time, which was fairly granted by the petitioner,” the order pointed out..The High Court also deemed it ironic that an “eminently fair attitude” of the petitioner had incurred the wrath of the ARC and invited costs of ₹5 lakh.“Unwarranted and needless hypersensitivity is not expected of Judicial Officers, who are expected, at all times to maintain composure and poise, befitting the office they hold,” highlighted the Court..Advocate Kunal Kalra represented the petitioner..[Read Order]