The Delhi High Court has levied a fine of ₹1 lakh on a lawyer for persistently reiterating the same plea for the third time, disregarding the Court's repeated warnings against doing so.

Justice C Hari Shankar imposed the costs after observing that, despite being well-informed about the law and procedures, the lawyer persisted with the application despite repeated warnings from the Court.

The application was filed to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents, alleging that they obtained an order before the trial court through fraudulent means.

“This Court has had to spend almost over 40 minutes in hearing the arguments of the applicant and has had to spend another half an hour in dictating the present order… It is not for this Court to divine the motives of the applicant in acting that he has. The Court, however, has to ensure that such misadventures and transparent attempts at abusing the legal process are nipped in the bud, so that other such trigger-happy litigants are deterred from committing similar misdemeanours,” the Court said.

The Court issued the order while addressing an application filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) within the context of a regular second appeal lodged by the legal heirs of Akshem Chand against the decision of the trial court.

Angad Ram and Suresh Bala initiated the suit against Chand, asserting themselves as the outright owners of a property wherein they permitted Chand and his family to reside as licensees. The lawsuit was adjudicated in favor of Ram and Bala, with Chand failing to obtain any reprieve in subsequent appeals presented before the District Judge, High Court, and the Supreme Court.

Following this, he submitted applications aiming to declare that the trial court's order was acquired through fraud by forging one of the documents. Upon its dismissal by the trial court, he pursued an application under Section 340 of the CrPC before the High Court. The High Court deliberated on the matter and remarked that this was the third instance of the issue being revived.

Furthermore, the High Court emphasized that when the legal process is misused by members of the legal profession, who are expected to safeguard and uphold it, the Court must adopt an exceedingly strict stance on the matter.

Consequently, it imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh and directed the applicant to deposit the amount with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within four weeks.

Advocate Swadesh Kumar appeared for the legal heirs of appellant Akshem Chand.

None appeared for the respondents. 

Case Title: Late Akshem Chand through LR Atlo Devi v Suresh Bala & Ors