Delhi HC Initiates Contempt Against Octogenarian Who ‘Maliciously’ Blamed His Earlier Lawyer [Read Order]

It is high time that, irrespective of age, gross dishonesty is taken note of and acted upon strongly by this court, it said.

Coming down heavily on an 84-year-old man, the Delhi High Court has issued contempt notice to him for seeking recall of an order on the ground that his counsel cheated him by withdrawing his appeal.

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,” Justice Valmiki J Mehta said.

Bachan Singh Kumar’s appeals were dismissed in 2014 as not pressed, recording the submission of his counsel, by giving time to him to vacate a building before 2016-year end.

In January 2017, he came with an application seeking recall of the order stating that his earlier counsel cheated and defrauded him by taking signatures on the affidavit of undertaking.

He also had approached Bar Council complaining against the lawyer.

The court said it disbelieves and rejects the dishonest averments of the applicant/appellant that he did not know the contents of the order.

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 dated 25.2.2014 till around January 2017. Obviously, the month of January 2017 is a convenient statement because time to vacate the suit premises expired on 31.12.2016, and which was granted by the order dated 25.2.2014.”

The court also said the status of every case of the court is not only available to be known by inspection of a court file directly by the litigant, but also the status of a case is available 24×7 and 365 days of the year on the website of the court.

 The court imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh and also issued a contempt notice. The court said: “The facts of the present case also 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.”

Read the Order here.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

*

    Top