In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, led by Justice Rekha Borana, imposed a ₹50,000 fine on a lawyer for misleading the court with false submissions to secure priority listing of a case. The court observed that the lawyer’s conduct amounted to abuse of judicial process and wasted valuable judicial time. The ruling came while dismissing appeals filed by Hussain and others against Gram Panchayat Roon, wherein the appellants falsely claimed residential possession of disputed land. The court strongly condemned the attempt to mislead the judiciary and distort facts.
Case Background
The case involved three civil miscellaneous appeals (No. 1749/2024, 1751/2024, and 1753/2024) filed by Hussain (63), Fakrudeen (51), and Teja Ram (67), residents of Roon village, Nagaur district. The appellants had challenged an order dated March 6, 2024, issued by the Additional District Judge No.1, Nagaur, rejecting their applications for an injunction against Gram Panchayat Roon’s demolition drive.
The appellants claimed they had been in possession of the land for over 40 years and had applied for regularization, which was allegedly ignored by the Gram Panchayat. However, the Tehsildar’s report from April 18, 2023, confirmed that no residential structures existed on the land in question. Instead, the site was being used for commercial purposes. The trial court found no evidence of any prior regularization applications and noted that the appellants had alternative residential properties in the same village.
Important Legal Issues
The case raised several legal issues:
1. Misrepresentation before the court – Whether false urgency and misleading statements to the court amount to an abuse of process.
2. Encroachment on public land – Whether the appellants’ claim of long-term possession could override the Gram Panchayat’s right to remove encroachments.
3. Duty of advocates – The ethical and legal obligations of lawyers to present accurate facts and uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.
Important Observations of the Court
Justice Rekha Borana, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, made several key observations:
– The claim that applications for regularization had been filed before the trial court was false. The court noted:
“A bare perusal of the applications reflects that they pertain to the month of June 2024, whereas the impugned order is of March 6, 2024. Meaning thereby, there were no such applications available on record before the learned Trial Court.”
– The argument that the appellants had no alternative residential land was totally misconceived. The court found that they had other khatedari lands and residential properties in the same village.
– The claim that the appellants were residing on the disputed land was not only false but deceitful. The Tehsildar’s report and photographic evidence showed that the land was being used for commercial purposes.
– On the issue of misleading the court, the judgment quoted a Supreme Court ruling in D.P. Chadha vs. Triyugi Narain Mishra & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 221, stating:
“Professional misconduct is grave when it consists of betraying the confidence of a client and is gravest when it is a deliberate attempt at misleading the court or an attempt at practising deception or fraud on the court.”
– The High Court further referenced a recent Supreme Court decision (Virender Singh & Ors. vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), W.P. (Crl) No. 296/2024, decided on September 10, 2024), stating:
“It is not possible for judges to go through each and every page of each and every case listed before the court. Our system works on faith. We trust the members of the Bar when we hear cases. But, when we come across cases like this, our faith is shaken.”
Decision of the Court
After a thorough examination, the High Court concluded that the lawyer had made misleading and deceptive submissions to obtain priority listing of the case and wasted the court’s time. The court found that:
– The appellants had no legitimate case against the Gram Panchayat, as they were not residing on the disputed land.
– The urgency claimed was fabricated, as the appeals were filed in May 2024 but pursued only after an adverse order was passed in January 2025.
– The lawyer deliberately misrepresented facts, causing serious abuse of process.
As a result, the court:
Dismissed the appeals in their entirety.
Imposed a fine of ₹50,000 on the lawyer for making misleading submissions and wasting judicial time.
Directed the fine to be deposited with the Litigants’ Welfare Fund within 15 days.
In a strong warning, Justice Borana emphasized:
“The obligation of an advocate is to assist the court in the fair administration of justice, not to mislead or deceive it. Misrepresentation by lawyers cannot be tolerated, as it shakes the very foundation of the judicial system.”
