Trying To Play Dilatory Tactics; Made Inconsistent Statements In Pleadings: Madhya Pradesh HC Imposes Cost on Petitioner Who Is Lawyer
The Madhya Pradesh High Court was considering a petition seeking the quashing of an order passed by the Trial Court.
Justice Sandeep Jain, Allahabad High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 2500 on a practising lawyer for making inconsistent statements in pleadings and trying to play dilatory tactics in civil suit proceedings. The High Court held that heavy cost should be imposed on him as he was well aware of all the requirements under the law and could not be considered an illiterate person.
The High Court was considering a petition seeking the quashing of an order passed by the Trial Court, and allowing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.
The Single Bench of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt held, “Normally, the Courts are taking lenient view while deciding application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC, without taking much hyper technical view but while considering the fact that the present petitioner is a practicing Lawyer and who has tried to plead his case before the trial Court as well as before this Court in total contradictory manner by narrating the facts in the application before the trial Court as well in the petition before this Court. Otherwise also, on the basis of material available on record, more particularly by referring to the earlier proceedings, it seems that petitioner is trying to play dilatory tactics by not proceeding with the suit proceedings in prompt manner. Therefore, I found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court viz-a-viz reasons assigned by the trial Court are found to be just and proper.”
“Considering the conduct of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner has made inconsistent statements in the pleadings and also tried to get undue advantage by way of such pleadings, this Court is of the opinion that heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioner, who is otherwise a practicing Lawyer, well aware about all requirement under the law and cannot be considered as illiterate person having no knowledge of law”, it added.
Advocate Dheeraj Sharma represented the Petitioner while Advocate Aditya Mishra represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioner that he is 70 years old and pursuing the legal proceedings. It was submitted that in the suit proceedings, the defendant did not appear, and the Court proceeded ex parte. It was further submitted that the petitioner, with utmost promptness and without unnecessary delay, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC by praying for the setting aside of the order of ex parte proceedings. The said application was filed within seven days; however, the Court dismissed the application. The petitioner thus sought interim relief.
The respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the petition was filed by the petitioner to delay the proceedings by deliberately not proceeding with the matter. It was submitted that even the petitioner had filed an application under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code for transfer of the proceedings by making incorrect averments in the application and had further submitted that in the affidavit in support of application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC before this Court, the occupation of the petitioner was mentioned as insurance service even though he is a practicing lawyer.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the petitioner is a practicing Lawyer and after putting in certain years in practice, has been making totally contradictory averments in the plaint before the trial Court as well as before this Court. As per the Bench, this was something which had to be viewed very seriously.
The Bench further stated that he had himself tried to confuse the Court or mislead the Court by making contradictory averments in the proceedings before the trial Court as well as before the High Court. “It is always expected that the litigant should come with clean hands before the Court by disclosing every facts true and correct and also by producing all relevant material on record’, it added.
Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court, the Bench held that there was no scope for interference and dismissed the Petition.
"In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only), which is required to be deposited by the petitioner in the High Court Bar Association, Indore within seven days from today and obtain a receipt", it ordered.
Cause Title: Divyaprakash v. Brijesh Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-IND:17448)