Referring Court As "His" Is Borderline Contempt, Punjab & Haryana HC Advises Fresh Lawyer To Exercise Restraint In Drafting, Addressing Arguments

Calling it borderline "contemptuous", the Punjab & Haryana High Court expressed reservation on the pleadings of a lawyer who referred to an Appellate Court as "his" and contended that his application was rejected on "irrelevant ground."

While hearing a revision plea against the order which allowed condonation of delay of 12 days, the Court criticised the manner of drafting and addressing the Court.

Justice Vikram Aggarwal said,

"the present petition is infact mis-directed and in a way has led to the wastage of the time of the Court. Further, the language used in the revision petition by repeatedly referring to the Appellate Court as “his” and stating that the application had been decided on irrelevant grounds and that the observations made were perverse, are just on the line between being simple averments and being contemptuous."

The petition averred that the Addl. District Judge, Pathankot "deliberately ignored" to consider the sufficient ground shown by the respondent (petitioner herein).

"Even the manner in which arguments were addressed leaves a lot to be desired," said the bench.

However, considering that the lawyer stated that he was a fresh entrant to the profession after superannuating from the Indian Revenue Service, the Court did not proceed to take any adverse action. The bench advised the counsel to exercise restraint while drafting his petitions and addressing arguments in the Court.

The revision petition emanated in a suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by the petitioner against the respondent. The same was decreed in 2022. However, an appeal was preferred by the defendant against the said judgment and decree. The said appeal was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 12 days in filing the appeal. 

Considering the submission, the Court said, it is well settled that normally, parties should be heard on merits and should not be non-suited on technicalities.

Referring to Basawaraj and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (20130, the Court said, Apex Court examined as to what would amount to a sufficient cause as defined under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was held that the expression “sufficient cause” should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial justice is done but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafidies cannot be imputed to the party concerned.

Justice Aggarwal explained that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation.

The bench further said in case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. "No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay."

In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature, it added.

The Court noted that in the present case, the suit was decided on 27 October, 2022 and the  appeal was filed with a delay of 12 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it was averred that some talks of a compromise were going on but with a malafide intention, the petitioner withdrew from the talks after the period of limitation had expired. 

The bench opined that "sufficient cause was shown in the application" and the the first Appellate Court was satisfied that the delay deserved to be condoned which it rightfully did.

In the light of the above the petition was dismissed.

Appearance: Tarsem Lal, Advocate for the petitioner.