Costs for misleading court: Supreme Court asks Gauhati High Court to let off lawyer if he apologises

The Supreme Court recently requested the Gauhati High Court to take a symphathetic view of the conduct of an advocate against whom costs of ₹20,000 was imposed for misleading the Court [Soneshwar Deka and Others v. Birsing Deka and Another]..A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stated in its order,"Conditional on Mr Ismail Haque tendering an unconditional apology in writing before the Single Judge of the High Court, we would request the Single Judge to take an appropriate view of the matter having regard to the fact that the mistake was committed by a junior at the Bar.".However, the Court also acknowledged the High Court’s concerns and noted that an advocate appearing before the court is above all an officer of the court and is required to carry out his or her duties in that capacity. "Being a junior at the Bar is not an immunity from observing proper code of behaviour, particularly in dealing with the court. At the same time, we have no manner of doubt that if the advocate tenders a written personal apology before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the learned Single Judge would take a sympathetic view by passing an appropriate order," the Court said..There was a case pending before the trial court in which the current appellants were involved. However, since they did not file the written statement for 22 days, the trial court imposed a fine of ₹20,000 on them. Aggrieved, the appellants (represented by Haque) approached the High Court.Before the High Court, Haque submitted that the time limit for filing a written statement was 120 days, and not 90 days. However, as per Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the time limit for filing the written statement is 30 days, which can be extended to 90 days. For commercial suits, the time limit is 120 days.Considering this as an attempt to mislead the Court, Justice Kalyan Rai Surana of the High Court ordered,"Therefore, taking an exception to the submission made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners to project the period of limitation for filing written statement to be 120 days, the Court is of the considered opinion that this application deserves to be dismissed in limine at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. Nonetheless, for making an attempt to mislead the Court, the Court is inclined to impose a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) on the learned counsel for the petitioners...".[Read Supreme Court Order].[Read Gauhati High Court Order]