“...As per the docket sheet of the trial Court in O.S. No.912 of 2021, on most of previous adjournments, both counsel [were] present, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners herein... In the light of the above, it is apt to note that Bench and the Bar have a shared responsibility to uphold the dignity and decorum of the judicial process,” the Court observed.

A single-judge bench of Justice K. Lakshman, while disposing of a civil revision petition filed by the plaintiffs, found that the trial court's docket order dated August 17, 2026, containing adverse observations against the plaintiffs' counsel, was not borne out by the proceedings recorded in the case.

The High Court clarified that it was not examining the merits of the underlying dispute and set aside the docket order only to the extent that it contained adverse remarks against the plaintiffs' counsel.

The two petitioners were the plaintiffs in a 2021 suit pending before a court at Kushaiguda, seeking a declaration of title and challenging a sale deed allegedly executed by the husband of petitioner No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 1.

The petitioners approached the High Court challenging the adverse observations made by the trial court in its docket order dated August 17, 2026. They contended that the allegations concerning the conduct and appearance of their counsel were contrary to the trial court's own records, which showed that both sides' counsel had been present on most of the previous dates of hearing.

It was further submitted that the trial court had adjourned the matter to December 21, 2026, without conducting any proceedings during call work on September 7, 2026, despite the matter being part-heard and petitioner No. 1 being an 82-year-old woman.

After calling for the original trial court records and hearing the petitioners, the High Court examined the sequence of proceedings in the suit.

The Court noted that the suit had been listed for cross-examination of PW-1 on March 12, 2026. At that stage, the petitioners filed an interim application seeking leave to place on record a death certificate and a Gift Settlement Deed.

According to the petitioners, the husband of petitioner No. 1 had executed the Gift Settlement Deed in favour of their daughter, bearing his original signature. They alleged that the sale deed purportedly executed by him in favour of respondent No. 1 was forged.

The record further showed that on June 23, 2026, the petitioners had filed another application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, seeking to send the disputed sale deed to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for comparison with the admitted signature of petitioner No. 1's husband appearing on the Gift Settlement Deed.

Both applications were pending before the trial court and had been posted for hearing on December 21, 2026.

The High Court also referred to the trial court's proceedings dated July 15, 2025, when the plaintiffs' counsel had informed the court that PW-1, petitioner No. 1, was an elderly woman who was unable to travel from her house. The matter was consequently posted to August 1, 2025, for marking of documents.

On examining the docket sheets, the High Court found that both counsel had been present on most of the previous dates of hearing. This supported the petitioners' contention that the adverse observations against their counsel were not substantiated by the record.

The Court also took note of the fact that petitioner No. 1 was an 82-year-old woman and referred to the policy and circulars issued by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court for prioritising cases involving senior citizens.

It noted that the Government of India had adopted the National Policy for Older Persons and that the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court had issued a circular on November 2, 1999, directing judicial officers to identify and prioritise cases involving persons above 65 years of age.

Referring to subsequent circulars reiterating the need for expeditious disposal of cases involving senior citizens, the High Court observed that the suit, instituted in 2021, required expeditious consideration.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the civil revision petition, setting aside the trial court's docket order only insofar as it contained adverse remarks against the plaintiffs' counsel. It also directed the trial court to decide the two pending applications and the suit expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law.