'Virtually Threatening Court': Karnataka High Court Raps Advocate For "Dictating Order" In Review Petition, Imposes ₹25K Cost

Emphatically censuring a lawyer's attempt to 'browbeat' and 'threaten' the court to pass favourable orders on the guise of a review petition, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25000/- before dismissing the said petition as 'vexatious' and 'frivolous'.

The single-judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar made scathing remarks about the counsel for the petitioners, B.M. Arun, in the order.

“…The Court cannot satisfy both parties; one party obviously being dissatisfied and the Advocate - Sri.B.M.Arun could not have stepped into the shoes of the client to express his dissatisfaction as if it is a personal case and ought not to have addressed the Court in the conduct disrespecting the Court and harming dignity and decorum of the Court”, the bench sitting at Dharwad opined that the lawyer had crossed a line in the process of canvassing arguments for his clients.

The court reminded the lawyer that he is a 'responsible, dignified spokesman' for his clients; lawyers are not placed as 'agents' of their clients, and they are certainly not expected to 'wear the shoes' of their clients.

The court disapproved of the review petitioner's counsel, Mr B.M. Arun's frustrated protest in a high-pitched voice when the bench reserved a 1/4^th share for the opposite parties.

“…Sri.B.M.Arun while addressing his submissions thinking that this Court has committed a blunder submitted that this order could not have been made and virtually he has dictated the Court to write the order according to his convenience and his whims and fancies.”, the court explained further about the counsel's improper conduct.

“… “Though this may be one of the factors to request the Bar Council to take necessary disciplinary action against said Advocate - Sri.B.M.Arun, but this court has restrained itself not to take such excessive steps as the Court has highest regard to Advocates”, the judge also clarified that his observation about the lawyer's lack of decorum has no bearing on the merits of the case in hand.

The review petitioners, belonging to the same family, challenged an order passed by the High Court in a Miscellaneous First Appeal (MFA) back in 2025 November. In the previous order, the Court had directed to reserve a 1/4th share for the plaintiff in OS 4625/2025, who is a physically disabled man and co-sharer. The court also mandated the demarcation of 1/4^th share for one of the defendants, an elderly woman named Channamma, who is also a co-sharer in the suit-schedule properties. This was despite the delay of 12 years in challenging several joint development agreement of 2013, wherein the review petitioners left out the aforesaid plaintiff and defendant as joint owners.

“…Channamma (Defendant in OS 4625/2025 ) is left out and admittedly she is a sister review petitioners being daughter of Muniyappa has not at all been considered in all these documentary transactions while executing joint development agreement with developer”, the court noted in the order after perusing the trial court records once again.

The court pointed out that the review petitioners have built hundreds of flats in the schedule properties jointly with the developer. In these circumstances, the court opined that any decree in favour of the plaintiff and 25^th Defendant in the suit for partition at the lower court, without reserving their shares, would be a mere 'paper decree'.

“…all the flats and apartments are sold out even if decree is passed by granting share but for realising the fruits is only nightmares for the decree holders. Therefore, protecting the rights of co-sharers as it is inherent to claim share in joint family properties and such order is made, which is attacked in this review petition.”, the court held.

The court opined that without the protection of a reservation, Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act will be a weak shield, unable to protect the interests of the plaintiff and defendant No.25.

Though the petitioners argued against the concerned parties on the line of suppression of material facts and dubious conduct, the court, in turn, highlighted the misconduct of the review petitioners.

“…review petitioners and developer both have decided the ownership and title of the parties according to their convenient documents. If this is not misconduct, then no other things would be misconduct”, the judge remarked.

The single judge bench, in the revision petition's order, held that there was 'no error apparent on the face of the record' under Order XLVII of CPC, to warrant the review of the order.

Case Title: K. Ganesh & Anr. vs. Govind Reddy & Ors.

Case Number: RP No. 587 of 2025

Click Here To Read/ Download Order