'As Officers Of Court, Advocates Should Advise Clients Properly': SC Mulls Action Against Lawyers For Filing Multiple Cases To Defeat Eviction Order

The bench of Justices S. K. Kaul and M. M. Sundresh was hearing an SLP against a March 7, 2022 decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a civil revision where the SLP petitioner- landlord had prayed for issuance of direction to the Executing court to complete the execution proceedings in a time bound manner, urging that the order of eviction which has been upheld even upto the Supreme Court is being frustrated by filing of multiple suits and objections by the partners/proprietor of the respondent-firm.

In its order of March 7, 2022, the High Court noted that on January 18, 2022, the Supreme Court had dismissed the tenants' challenge to the September, 2021 judgment of the High Court by which the latter had refused to interfere with eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Appellate Authority in a petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 where the landlords successfully proved the bonafide requirement of one of the co-owner. In its January 18, 2022 order, the Supreme Court had, at the request of the tenants, extended the time till 30.06.2022 to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the entire premises "subject to furnishing of usual undertaking and damages to be assessed and paid as per the orders of the Courts below in this court within two weeks".

The High Court, in its March 7, 2022 order, recorded that the advocate for the landlord contends that the respondents did not furnish an undertaking, and that they have filed various suits which are pending before the different Presiding Officers. By its March 7, 2022 order, the High Court disposed off the civil revision stating that "In the considered view of the court, it would not be appropriate to pass any order, at this stage. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application while drawing the attention of the Executing Court to the various orders passed by the Courts with a prayer to expedite the disposal of the execution petition. The petitioner shall also have the liberty to file an application before the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, to transfer or consolidate all the suits which have been filed to avoid any contradictory orders. Since, this order has been passed without issuing notice to the respondents, hence, they shall have liberty to file an application for recall of this order, if advised"

In the present SLP, the top court had on May 5 noted that "prima facie there is an endeavour to violate the orders of this Court which would border on contempt" and had proceeded to issue contempt notice to the respondents. On May 18, the Supreme Court said that "apart from the respondents, there are near and dear ones and others who are prima facie in collusion to circumvent orders of this Court and it is time that such endeavours, neigh clipping in the bud, at least at this stage are brought to culmination and the natural consequence flowed for all such people who happen to be the part of what at best be said is conspiracy to defeat the orders of this Court". Therefore, the Court had ordered to implead "all the actors in this drama as respondents", issuing notice of contempt to all the parties with a direction to remain personally present in Court.

On Wednesday, the bench of Justices Kaul and Sundresh, in its sternly-worded order, stated that it is "shocked and surprised that the contemnors even considered that they could get away with what they tried i.e. after the Court's order multiple proceedings were initiated in different Courts through different family members and associates to frustrate the decree of the Court". The bench observed that "an unconditional apology has been tendered but we cannot let the matter rest at that as such an endeavor sends a very wrong signal to the society"

"We specifically posed a question to the contemnors whether they were legally advised with full knowledge of the prior proceedings, they admit so and on Court's query they have given the names as (...), (...), (...) and (...), Advocates. We call upon the petitioners to file a list of all the advocates who filed different proceedings along with particulars and we consider it appropriate to issue notice to all the counsels who played a role in this process to defeat orders of the Court", ordered the bench.

The bench directed that the matter be listed for "further proceedings for consideration qua the other parties/lawyers to whom we have considered it appropriate to issue notice who are stated to have advised the parties to traverse this disastrous path seeking to circumvent orders of the Court".

"As officers of the Court they have a higher responsibility to advise the clients properly rather than the advise they gave including initiation of proceedings challenging the allotment to the petitioner's father under the garb of a public interest suit", declared the bench

As regards the respondents, the bench held that all the respondents are guilty of wilful contumacious contempt of the Court; that even though unconditional apology has been tendered by all the contemnors, it is not willing to accept the said apology without consequences; and that an apology can only be a redeeming factor and that aspect he court will take into account while considering the issue of sentence.

Turning to the issue of sentence, in view of the unconditional apology, the bench said it is inclined to take a little more lenient view on the issue of sentence and thus imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each of the contemnors and sentenced them till the rising of the Court. The bench also directed that the litigation costs of the present proceedings be compensated by the contemnors quantified at Rs.5,00,000/-

The bench required the main concerned person amongst the contemnors (as informed to the Court) to again remain present in Court on the next date when it considers the issue of the lawyers.

As regards the person alleged to have initiated the public interest suit and who was also present as contemnor in Court on Wednesday, the bench recorded that it has repeatedly put to him the question that he should say under whose influence he has carried out this suit but he seeks to make excuses by only saying that he was looking for a plot and in that process he started this litigation. "We do not accept this explanation. We are inclined to sentence him for a longer period of time but learned senior counsel submits that he will file an affidavit explaining his position and the sentence to the extent of his imprisonment may be deferred while maintaining the same fine at proportionate costs", added the bench