IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT 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
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 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.
CS(OS) 465/2007
The matter is listed for ex parte evidence on
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
ak
i.8