IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI
CS(OS) 465/2007
SAVITA KHATRI ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. G.S. Khatri, Adv.
Versus
RAI SINGH TEWETHIA and ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajender K. Panigrahi, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
O R D E R
20.10.2009
IA No.13431/09
This application has been made under order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the defendant for recalling the order dated 15th July, 2009 when the defendant and his counsel did not appear in the Court and the defendant was proceeded ex parte. The application is supported by affidavit of defendant no. 1 and affidavit of his counsel R.K.Panigrahi. In the application, it is stated by the defendant that counsel for the defendant in his diary noted a wrong date. Instead of 15th July, 2009, he noted 15th October, 2009 and therefore the counsel and the defendant could not appear before the Court on 15th July, 2009. Counsel visited the High Court website on 11th October, 2009 and then he found that next date in the case was 14th October, 2009 and case was also fixed on 15th July, 2009. It is stated that defendant has been bonafidely prosecuting and conducting the suit and non-appearance of the defendant and his counsel was due to above reason.
Counsel for the plaintiff has filed a reply to the application in the Court itself. Before filing reply to the application, counsel for the plaintiff moved an application under RTI to the Registry of High Court and sought information if any request for issuance of gate pass to the defendant for 15.7.09 was received by the Registry from his counsel. Under RTI, the information was given to the plaintiff that such a request was received from defendant's counsel for issuance of gate pass for 15.7.09 to the defendant by the Registry and a copy of the request was also furnished to the applicant/plaintiff. Along with the reply to defendant?s application, the plaintiff has filed the RTI information received and the copy of request forwarded by defendant?s counsel for issuance of gate pass to the defendant for 15.7.09. When the defendant?s counsel was confronted with this information and the copy of request made by him for issuance of gate pass to his client on 15.7.09 he said he was sorry for this.
It is obvious that the defendant's counsel deliberately, with the intention of misleading the Court and playing fraud with the Court, knowing that his client had appeared in the Court and watched the proceedings and he himself had noted right date in his diary, made this false application to the Court accompanied by his own false affidavit and false affidavit of his client/defendant no.1.
I consider that conduct of counsel for the defendant is unbecoming of an Advocate. It only looks that the Advocate has lost sense of professional ethics. He mislead the litigant and even forged his dairy to show to the Court that he had noted wrong date. He filed a false affidavit of himself and his client. He is liable to be prosecuted under Sections 182, 192, 196, 199 and 200 IPC. A complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC is liable to be filed against Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi and defendant and both are liable to be prosecuted for above offences. Registrar General of High Court is directed to file a complaint against the Advocate as well as against defendant no.1 U/s 195 Cr.PC for filing false affidavit in the Court and making false averments and allegations, deliberately, in the Court. A letter be also written by Registrar General to the Bar Council for considering cancellation of license of Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi as he is not fit to be an Advocate. The application under Section 9 Rule 7 CPC is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- on Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi. The costs shall be paid by the Advocate himself because as it is the Advocate who advised his client wrongly and asked him to file a false affidavit. In case cost is not paid, the same shall be recovered by attachment of the assets of the Advocate.
The matter is listed for ex parte evidence on 23rd October, 2009 before the Joint Registrar and ex parte evidence be recorded on that date.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
OCTOBER 20, 2009
CS(OS) 465/2007
SAVITA KHATRI ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. G.S. Khatri, Adv.
Versus
RAI SINGH TEWETHIA and ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajender K. Panigrahi, Adv.
CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
O R D E R
20.10.2009
IA No.13431/09
This application has been made under order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC on behalf of the defendant for recalling the order dated 15th July, 2009 when the defendant and his counsel did not appear in the Court and the defendant was proceeded ex parte. The application is supported by affidavit of defendant no. 1 and affidavit of his counsel R.K.Panigrahi. In the application, it is stated by the defendant that counsel for the defendant in his diary noted a wrong date. Instead of 15th July, 2009, he noted 15th October, 2009 and therefore the counsel and the defendant could not appear before the Court on 15th July, 2009. Counsel visited the High Court website on 11th October, 2009 and then he found that next date in the case was 14th October, 2009 and case was also fixed on 15th July, 2009. It is stated that defendant has been bonafidely prosecuting and conducting the suit and non-appearance of the defendant and his counsel was due to above reason.
Counsel for the plaintiff has filed a reply to the application in the Court itself. Before filing reply to the application, counsel for the plaintiff moved an application under RTI to the Registry of High Court and sought information if any request for issuance of gate pass to the defendant for 15.7.09 was received by the Registry from his counsel. Under RTI, the information was given to the plaintiff that such a request was received from defendant's counsel for issuance of gate pass for 15.7.09 to the defendant by the Registry and a copy of the request was also furnished to the applicant/plaintiff. Along with the reply to defendant?s application, the plaintiff has filed the RTI information received and the copy of request forwarded by defendant?s counsel for issuance of gate pass to the defendant for 15.7.09. When the defendant?s counsel was confronted with this information and the copy of request made by him for issuance of gate pass to his client on 15.7.09 he said he was sorry for this.
It is obvious that the defendant's counsel deliberately, with the intention of misleading the Court and playing fraud with the Court, knowing that his client had appeared in the Court and watched the proceedings and he himself had noted right date in his diary, made this false application to the Court accompanied by his own false affidavit and false affidavit of his client/defendant no.1.
I consider that conduct of counsel for the defendant is unbecoming of an Advocate. It only looks that the Advocate has lost sense of professional ethics. He mislead the litigant and even forged his dairy to show to the Court that he had noted wrong date. He filed a false affidavit of himself and his client. He is liable to be prosecuted under Sections 182, 192, 196, 199 and 200 IPC. A complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC is liable to be filed against Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi and defendant and both are liable to be prosecuted for above offences. Registrar General of High Court is directed to file a complaint against the Advocate as well as against defendant no.1 U/s 195 Cr.PC for filing false affidavit in the Court and making false averments and allegations, deliberately, in the Court. A letter be also written by Registrar General to the Bar Council for considering cancellation of license of Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi as he is not fit to be an Advocate. The application under Section 9 Rule 7 CPC is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- on Advocate Rajender Kumar Panigrahi. The costs shall be paid by the Advocate himself because as it is the Advocate who advised his client wrongly and asked him to file a false affidavit. In case cost is not paid, the same shall be recovered by attachment of the assets of the Advocate.
The matter is listed for ex parte evidence on 23rd October, 2009 before the Joint Registrar and ex parte evidence be recorded on that date.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
OCTOBER 20, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment