The Bombay High Court, while dismissing Civil Revision Application No.189 of 2025 filed by Ballam Trifla Singh, directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of Advocate Vijay Kurle, who sought an adjournment on the day judgment was scheduled to be pronounced, despite the matter having been fully heard.
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar held that the conduct of Mr. Kurle amounted to misconduct and appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay the passing of the order. “The said conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate, clearly shows that he is completely aware that the matter is kept today for passing order and to ensure that the order is not passed today and the proceedings are delayed,” the Court observed.
Case Background
The case arose from an eviction suit (R.A.E. & R. Suit No.83/228 of 1996) filed by landlord Gyan Prakash Shukla against tenants who had allegedly sublet the premises. The suit was decreed in 2016 after two decades of litigation. The applicant in the present civil revision – Ballam Trifla Singh – is the son of the judgment debtor (Defendant No.3) and had filed obstructionist proceedings claiming ownership over the suit premises on the basis of a disputed 1990 sale deed.
Both the Small Causes Court and the Appellate Court had found that the documents relied upon by the applicant were unregistered, unstamped, and manipulated. They concluded that the sale deed and related evidence were fabricated to obstruct the execution of the eviction decree.
Court’s Observations on the Advocate’s Conduct
On April 4, 2025, the revision application was fully argued by Senior Advocate Ranjit Thorat. Upon the Court pointing out the concurrent adverse findings against the applicant, Mr. Thorat sought time to consider withdrawal of the petition. However, when the matter was called on April 9 for orders, Mr. Vijay Kurle appeared with instructions to argue the matter and sought an adjournment.
Justice Jamdar strongly disapproved of this conduct, stating:
“An Advocate shall act at all times in a manner befitting his status as an Officer of the Court… Mr. Vijay Kurle has acted as an agent/mouthpiece of the Applicant and not as the Officer of the Court.”
The Court noted that Mr. Kurle had not made any prior inquiries about the stage of the proceedings and appeared to delay the verdict intentionally.
Direction to Bar Council and Dismissal with Costs
Holding that Mr. Kurle’s actions breached professional standards and the Bar Council’s Rules of Conduct, the Court directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate an inquiry:
“It is specifically made clear that the observations made in this order regarding the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle are prima facie and all contentions are kept open to be decided in the enquiry to be conducted by the Bar Council.”
In addition to this, the Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application with exemplary costs of ₹2,00,000 and appointed the Court Receiver to take possession of the premises and hand it over to the decree holder.
The Court also invoked the Supreme Court’s rulings in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, emphasizing that litigants must approach courts with clean hands and that misuse of judicial process must be curbed.
