Madhya Pradesh High Court Decision on Lawyer’s False Attendance Claim
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently imposed a penalty of ₹2,500 on a veteran lawyer for misrepresenting his attendance at a trial court hearing, thus upholding the lower court’s decision in the case of Divyaprakash v. Brijesh Kumar and Others. The 77-year-old lawyer, who was a defendant in the case, had earlier requested the trial court to reverse an order made in his absence, claiming he had been present but failed to properly register his attendance.
The lawyer’s plea was originally dismissed by the trial court and subsequently challenged in the High Court. On July 2, Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt reaffirmed the trial court’s decision, citing the lack of “good cause” for the lawyer’s absence and his contradictory statements. The court emphasized the importance of litigants approaching the court “with clean hands” by presenting truthful and comprehensive material.
The High Court observed that the lawyer appeared to be employing delaying tactics and was not proceeding with the case in a timely manner. This was evident from his failure to attend hearings in April, leading to the trial court’s decision to conduct proceedings ex parte in his absence on April 13. The lawyer’s subsequent application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to have this order recalled was rejected by the trial court on May 4, as it found no legitimate reason for his absence. The court also noted that CCTV footage did not support his claim of presence on April 13.
In his appeal to the High Court, the lawyer argued that his absence was due to age-related health issues and emphasized that his application was filed promptly within seven days of the ex parte order. However, the respondents pointed out his inconsistent positions, highlighting discrepancies between his claims before the trial court and the High Court.
The High Court concluded that the lawyer failed to demonstrate “good cause” for his non-appearance as required under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, supporting the trial court’s decision as neither perverse nor illegal. The imposition of costs was justified due to the lawyer’s inconsistent statements and attempt to gain undue advantage through misleading pleadings.
More Read
The court ordered the lawyer to deposit the costs with the High Court Bar Association in Indore within seven days. Advocate Dheeraj Sharma represented the petitioner, while Advocate Aditya Mishra appeared for the respondent.
