Rajasthan High Court imposes ₹50K costs on lawyer for misleading court

The Rajasthan High Court recently imposed costs of ₹50,000 on a lawyer for making false and misconceived submissions to seek priority listing of cases. .Justice Rekha Borana rebuked the appellants' counsel for misleading the court through incorrect and fallacious arguments.The Court stressed on the importance of trust between the Bar and the Bench and underscored that advocates have a duty to refrain from misleading the court or withholding material facts. The Court cited Supreme Court precedents to reaffirm that professional misconduct is grave when it involves deceiving the court."This Court is of the clear view that had the facts not been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, definitely the appellants would have had a leverage by getting away with concealment and non-disclosure of the material facts. The distorted facts as stated before this Court not only prove to be an attempt to mislead the Court but also an attempt to waste precious time of the Court," the judge said..The Court was hearing appeals challenging an order dated March 6, 2024 by the additional district judge, Nagaur, rejecting the appellants' applications. The trial court had found no evidence supporting the appellants' claims of long-term residential possession or pending applications for regularization of constructions. It had noted that the land in question was being used for commercial activities and that the appellants had other properties where they resided.This led to the appeal before the High Court.On February 2, the appellants' counsel argued before the High Court that the plaintiffs had been in possession of the land for over 40 years and had applied for regularization but the panchayat had ignored their applications. The High Court then directed the appellants to produce relevant documents. Pursuant to that, certain documents were produced but the same contained no specific land details, rendering them vague and irrelevant..The appellants further contended that the Tehsildar’s 2023 report was incorrect, the panchayat was selectively targeting them for eviction, and they had no alternative residence. However, the Court found their submissions unsubstantiated, affirming the trial court’s findings.The panchayat opposed the appeals, stating the plaintiffs never sought regularization before the March 6, 2024 order and that their June 2024 applications pertained to other land. It argued the appellants had alternative homes and used the disputed land only for commercial purposes and the same was substantiated by land records and photographs.It was argued that the appellants had unsuccessfully challenged the matter through multiple petitions and only filed the present appeals after eviction proceedings intensified following High Court directives.After reviewing the evidence, the High Court found all arguments raised by the appellants to be incorrect and misleading. It found that the appellants had other residential properties and their claim of residing on the disputed land was false. The electricity bills further confirmed that the land was used for commercial purposes. The High Court also rejected allegations of selective action by the panchaya and found that notices were issued to all encroachers, a fact which was confirmed by an official inquiry.Given these findings, the Court concluded that the trial court’s order was legally sound and did not warrant interference and dismissed the appeals..The Court further highlighted that the urgency cited for an early hearing was misleading, as the case had been pending since May 2024 with multiple adjournments. It also noted that the counsel made emphatic but false statements regarding the regularization application and the nature of the appellants’ properties.As a consequence, the Court dismisses the appeals and imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the counsel, directing him to deposit the same with the Litigants’ Welfare Fund within 15 days.Advocates CS Kotwani, Mukesh Purohit and Gaurav Khatri appeared for the appellants..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.