Karnataka High Court Criticizes Advocates for Delayed Process Fee Payments

In a recent session, the Karnataka High Court strongly criticized the recurrent issue of advocates failing to pay process fees in cases with interim orders that were issued months, or even years, prior. Presiding over the matter, Justice V. Srishananda expressed the Court’s frustration with litigants who secure interim orders yet allow their cases to languish unresolved.

Justice Srishananda did not mince words, stating, “Don’t think otherwise. I am harsh, I am required to be harsh. We cannot tolerate this. Taking an interim order and managing an internet copy, how is this?” The judge emphasized that he might vacate interim orders in matters where the process fee remains unpaid.

The hearing involved a case where the process fee had not been settled despite an order dated March 9, 2026. When the advocate involved cited oversight as a reason for the delay, Justice Srishananda warned of potential dismissal. He noted encountering several cases dating back to 2021 with unpaid fees, questioning, “I have cases from 2021. They have not paid the fee. I have 100 cases. I asked to list them. For five years, process fee has not been paid. What does it reflect?”

Justice Srishananda criticized the practice that seemingly permits parties to secure interim orders and then halt proceedings. He described it as “mischief,” where parties obtain an interim order and cease further actions, leading to prolonged inactivity.

The Court also scrutinized the registry for its handling of old matters, noting discrepancies in how cases have been listed. Justice Srishananda remarked on a sudden increase in the number of listed cases, questioning, “Where did all these cases come from? Where did they come up? Don’t you think it is injustice?”

Justice Srishananda pointed out that some cases had become redundant as early as 2022 but remained pending. Reflecting on his previous tenure as Registrar (Judicial), he mentioned that physical verification of pending matters was a practice during that time. “They say it is continuing now also. If that is the case, how come these 111 cases?” he questioned.

Further, the judge inquired why cases earmarked by a co-ordinate bench to be listed the following week had not appeared even after several years, sarcastically questioning, “One week in the meaning of the High Court is six years, is it?”

Following Justice Srishananda’s directive to list all old matters, a notable number of advocates have since proceeded to pay the process fee. “After I asked the office to list the matter, I don’t know how advocates came to know. Already 20-30 people have paid process,” the Court observed.

Justice Srishananda concluded that accountability for such procedural lapses cannot be easily transferred between officials, stating, “They can’t escape so easily.”