Ha ha ha … here is a lawyer who was really a liar but he thought he was only a lawyer, till the High court of Delhi reminded him that he is a liar!
See the judgment below, and read the lines in bold for quick read on how the liar… er lawyer was fined Rs 25,000 by high court for his law-ing, i.e. lying.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SAVITA KHATRI ….. Plaintiff
Through: Mr. G.S. Khatri, Adv.
RAI SINGH TEWETHIA and ORS. ….. Defendants
Through: Mr. Rajender K. Panigrahi, Adv.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
O R D E R
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
Read my book on how to save on maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act. (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online)(PDF book)
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 under Section 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