Rajasthan High Court
When Daily Cause List Reaches Upto 600 Matters, Courts Have No Option Than To Rely On Counsels' Submissions: Rajasthan HC Imposes Costs On Advocate For Misleading Court
|The Rajasthan High Court held that it is the basic obligation of a litigant and his lawyer not to deceive or mislead the Court.
The Rajasthan High Court has imposed costs of Rs. 50k on an Advocate for an attempt to get a priority in getting the matters listed out of turn on account of the alleged grave urgency and further misleading the Court by total “incorrect, false and misconceived submissions.”
The Court held that the “distorted facts” as stated before the Court proved to be an attempt to mislead the Court and to waste its precious time. The case pertained to a dispute over encroachments on Gram Panchayat land in Roon and the Appellants' claims for regularisation of their old possession of the said land.
A Single Bench of Justice Rekha Borana held, “In view of the above observations, this Court finds it essential to saddle counsel for the appellants with a cost for an attempt to get a priority in getting the matters listed out of turn on account of the alleged grave urgency and further to mislead the Court by total incorrect, false and misconceived submissions.”
Advocate C.S. Kotwani represented the Appellant, while Advocate Manish Tak appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellants had challenged an Order rejecting their Applications for interim relief under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC. The appellants claimed they had been residing on the disputed land for over 40 years and had applied for regularisation of their possession. However, the Gram Panchayat argued that the land was being used solely for commercial activities and that the Appellants had other properties in the same village.
The Trial Court found that there was no evidence of residential use of the land, no applications for regularisation had been submitted before the relevant authority before the impugned Order, and the Appellants were engaged in commercial activities on the disputed property.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted the misleading submissions made by the Appellants’ counsel, stating that the urgency pleaded for an early hearing was “misleading”. The Court further noted that the Appeals were filed in May 2024 but were repeatedly adjourned at the request of the Appellants’ counsel. However, in 2025, the counsel made an urgent mentioning, claiming that the property was about to be demolished, and based on the same, the Court listed the matter on urgency.
The Court explained, “In the present scenario, when the Courts are overloaded and overburdened with the number of listed cases where the daily cause list comprises of more than 300 matters per day and many a times, reaching to 600 matters per day, the Courts have no other option than to rely upon the submissions made by the counsels. In such a scenario, the Courts even pass orders relying upon the submissions as made by the counsels. It is the basic obligation of the litigant and his lawyer not to deceive or mislead the Court. This responsibility extends to every function including the presentation and interpretation of facts, drafting of pleadings and documents, legal argument and other submissions or communications with the Court.”
The counsel made a statement “on oath” that the Appellants were residing on the disputed land, and based on the said emphatic statement made by the counsel, the Court directed him to place on record the said applications and directed the matters to be posted.
“In view of all the above observations and findings as recorded by this Court hereinabove, it is crystal clear that the Court was clearly misled by counsel for the appellants. All the submissions and arguments as raised by the counsel were/are totally incorrect and misleading,” the Bench remarked.
“This Court is of the clear view that had the facts not been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, definitely the appellants would have had a leverage by getting away with concealment and non-disclosure of the material facts. The distorted facts as stated before this Court not only prove to be an attempt to mislead the Court but also an attempt to waste precious time of the Court,” the Court held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “The appeals are therefore, dismissed at a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by counsel Mr. C.S. Kotwani with the Litigants’ Welfare Fund within a period of fifteen days from now.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Hussain v. Gram Panchayat Roon & Anr. and connected matters (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:7566)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates C.S. Kotwani, Mukesh Purohit and Gaurav Khatri
Respondent: Advocates Manish Tak and Dilip Solanki