- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
Delhi High Court has remarked that it expects that counsel are "fair to the Court" so that allegations of false statements in respect of their health are not investigated. (DD Enterprises vs Devender Anand)
The statement was made by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh while dealing with an application seeking recall of an order passed by the Court.
The order had condoned the delay in filing the written statement.
The recall was being sought on the ground that on the day of the order, the counsel for the Petitioner had made an incorrect statement that he suffered a fracture, when, in fact, he was appearing in another matter.
It was pointed out that the assertion about the Petitioner's counsel's fractured leg was also recorded in the order, however, the same was incorrect.
After hearing the counsel for the Applicant, the Court stated that whenever a counsel makes a statement that he is indisposed, it is not disbelieved by the Court.
The Court added,
The Court further said that such a course of action, in which allegations of false statements on health are investigated by the Court, would make the working of courts completely impossible as the system functions on the trust reposed by the Court upon counsel.
As far as the present case was concerned, the Court noted that while the submission that the counsel had suffered a fracture was noticed by it, the primary reason for condoning the delay in filing the written statement was the fact that the delay was only of a couple of weeks.
"Thus, the alleged statement made by the counsel for the Petitioner would not call for recall of the order, inasmuch as the impugned order is not merely predicated on the statement made by the counsel for the Petitioner but on the short period of delay and the written statement has been permitted to be taken on record in view of the costs of Rs.20,000/- which were imposed on the Petitioner, also having been paid.", it added.
Accordingly, without making any observation in respect of the alleged incorrect statement made on behalf of the Petitioner, the Court opined that it was not inclined to entertain the application for recall of order.
Read the order: