Madhya Pradesh High Court fines lawyer ₹2.5k for false claim of attending trial court hearing

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently imposed costs of ₹2,500 on a 77-year-old lawyer, while upholding a trial court's finding that he had falsely claimed to have been present before it for a hearing in a case to which he was a party [Divyaprakash v. Brijesh Kumar and Others].

The lawyer (petitioner before the High Court) was a defendant in the case pending before the trial court.

He had earlier filed an application before the trial court under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), to recall a trial court order that had been passed on the ground that he was absent during a particular hearing.

He claimed that he had actually been present, but had failed to mark his presence properly. The trial court rejected the recall plea, which was then challenged before the High Court.

On July 2 order, Justice Sandeep N Bhatt too dismissed the recall plea.

The High Court held that although courts ordinarily adopt a lenient approach while considering applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, such relief cannot be granted where a litigant makes contradictory pleadings, fails to establish "good cause" for previous non-appearance and does not approach the court with clean hands.

"It is always expected that the litigant should come with clean hands before the Court by disclosing every facts true and correct and also by producing all relevant material on record," the Court observed.

It further observed that the material on record suggested that the petitioner was "trying to play dilatory tactics" by failing to proceed with the suit promptly.

The matter was tied to the failure of the petitioner (defendant before trial court) to appear for trial court hearings in April. Since he failed to appear, the trial court decided to proceed ex parte (without hearing the defendant). An order to this effect was passed on April 13.

A week later, on April 20, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC seeking recall of the April 13 order and permission to contest the suit on the merits.

In that application, he claimed that he had in fact appeared before the trial court on April 13 to seek time but, owing to his lack of knowledge of legal procedure, could not sign the application or verify the order sheet, resulting in his absence being incorrectly recorded.

The trial court rejected the application on May 4. It noted that its order sheets clearly recorded the petitioner's absence on both April 7 and April 13 and observed that he had assigned no reason for his absence. It further found that the petitioner had falsely claimed to have been present on April 13 despite the CCTV cameras installed in the court premises not reflecting any such attendance. The trial court, therefore, refused to recall the ex parte proceedings.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Before the High Court, he contended that he was a senior citizen who could not appear before the trial court due to old age and sudden medical difficulty. He argued that his application under Order 9 Rule 7 had been filed within seven days of the ex parte order and that the trial court ought to have granted him another opportunity to contest the suit on the merits.

The respondents (plaintiffs before trial court) opposed the plea, pointing out that the petitioner had taken inconsistent stands. While he claimed before the High Court that he had remained absent due to medical reasons, his application before the trial court stated that he had actually appeared on April 13.

The High Court ruled that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the requirement of showing "good cause" for his earlier absence from hearings under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.

It concluded that the trial court's reasons for rejecting the application were just and proper and suffered from neither perversity nor illegality.

The Court added that costs should be imposed on the petitioner for taking inconsistent stands.

“Considering the conduct of the petitioner and in view of the fact that the petitioner has made inconsistent statements in the pleadings and also tried to get undue advantage by way of such pleadings, this Court is of the opinion that heavy cost should be imposed on the petitioner, who is otherwise a practicing Lawyer, well aware about all requirement under the law and cannot be considered as illiterate person having no knowledge of law,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with costs of ₹2,500. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit the amount with the High Court Bar Association, Indore, within seven days.

Advocate Dheeraj Sharma appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate Aditya Mishra appeared for the respondent.

[Read Order]