Saturday, July 20, 2024
Top Stories

HC fines Lawyer Rs 20,000 for prolonging 2011 case

Gauhati High Corut Kohima Bench

DIMAPUR, JULY 10: Taking exception to a lawyer’s attempt at deliberately prolonging the disposal of a case pending since 2011, the Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has imposed a penalty of Rs 20,000 on the lawyer, V Devnath.
In an order issued on July 8, Justice Kakheto Sema made it clear that the fine was being imposed on the lawyer and not his client ~ the appellant in the case.
According to Court records, the regular first appeal (RFA) was filed by a resident of Dimapur, Salikur Raja Khan, against the Jame Masjid Committee, Dimapur.
“This case was heard in length on July 4, 2024, and was ordered to be listed again as a part-heard item on July 8, 2024. Today, when the matter is listed, Mr. D Nagi, learned Counsel, appears and seeks adjournment of the case on behalf of Mr. V Devnath, the learned Counsel for the appellant, on the ground that the learned Counsel for the appellant is out of station.
“The present appeal is of the year 2011. This Court therefore, to give finality to the case heard the appeal on July 4, 2024, and directed the case to be listed again today for hearing. It however appears that the learned Counsel for the appellant is resorting to means to deliberately prolong the case despite the case being of the year 2011, and despite the case being one of the oldest cases pending in the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench”, read the order.
Justice Sema remarked that the Court highly deprecates the conduct of the Counsel for the appellant to deliberately delay the disposal of the appeal by way of adjourning the hearing.
“This Court after taking into consideration the conduct of the learned Counsel for the appellant imposes a cost of Rs 20,000 (Rupees
Twenty Thousand) on the learned Counsel for the appellant to be paid to the respondent, i.e., the Jame Masjid Committee, Dimapur.
“The learned Counsel for the appellant shall deposit the cost before the Registry within a period of 7 (seven) days from today, and upon receipt of the cost the Registry shall disburse the cost to the respondent, i.e., the Jame Masjid Committee, Dimapur and/or to the learned Counsel for the respondents on proper authorisation and under proper receipt. It is made abundantly clear that the cost is imposed on the learned Counsel for the appellant for the reasons aforesaid, and not on the appellant”, stated the order.
The Judge further made it clear that if the Counsel for the appellant doesn’t deposit the penalty as ordered, necessary orders will be passed for awarding penal interest on the cost imposed.
The next hearing will be on July 29.
(Page News Service)

error: