The Punjab & Haryana High Court said litigants cannot backtrack or blame their lawyer after withdrawing a case. It added that “a counsel is an officer of the court and not merely a mechanical agent of the litigant” while rejecting such excuses.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court underlined that litigants who withdraw their cases cannot later retreat and blame their lawyers for that withdrawal.
Justice Sumeet Goel observed that a litigant’s attempt to backtrack after withdrawing a matter claiming it occurred due to a ‘lack of instructions’ to counsel constitutes “procedural heresy” that undermines the advocate–client relationship and disrespects the adjudicatory process.
The Bench remarked,
“The judicial process operates on the foundational presumption that statements made by a counsel at the Bar are made with full authority and reflect the true intent of the litigant concerned. This principle ensures that the Court can effectively adjudicate without being compelled to verify the internal communications between a lawyer and the client at every state of proceedings. By executing a Vaqalatnama, a litigant clothes the counsel engaged with express as well as implied authority to plead, act and appear in the best interest of the client,”
The court added that accepting such after-the-fact assertions would make every court proceeding provisional and expose judicial orders to repeated reopening simply because a litigant changed their mind or secured new legal representation.
The Court emphasised,
“Pertinently, entertaining such a plea would pave the way for a dangerous precedent, effectively allowing a second bite at the apple. It is to be borne in mind that a counsel is an officer of the court and not merely a mechanical agent of the litigant; and owes a duty to the court to ensure the smooth administration of justice. If an act, conduct or concession given by a counsel is not deemed to be authorized by the litigant, the entire adjudicatory framework would stall, as no opposing party or presiding officer could ever rely upon a statement made by a legal representative,”
The observations arose while hearing an anticipatory bail application in a murder case. In January the accused withdrew the plea and was allowed liberty to approach the trial court within seven days to seek regular bail.
He later filed an application seeking recall of that order, asserting he had not authorised his previous counsel to give the undertaking and had only instructed the withdrawal of the bail petition.
The Court treated the recall application as an attempt to evade the consequences of the earlier order and noted there was no evidence supporting the allegations.
It added,
“The averment that the previous counsel was ‘not properly instructed’, stands in the face of the integrity of the legal profession. The applicant-petitioner having put his signature on the Vaqalatnama, cannot be permitted to act as a stranger to the actions taken by his earlier counsel in open court, especially when such action was intended to mitigate a legal damage. To accept this plea would virtually allow the applicant-petitioner to abuse the process of law by turning this Court into a laboratory for experimental litigation,”
The court also warned that others should not be encouraged to follow a similar course in the expectation of judicial indulgence.
It said that imposing exemplary costs is necessary “so as to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is rather practiced in our Country, there is no premium on the truth.”
The Bench concluded that meritless, misleading pleas that mock the court’s process must be treated sternly.
Accordingly, the application to recall the earlier order was dismissed and the petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs.20,000.
Advocate Gaurav Grover appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Deputy Advocate General Mahima Yashpal Singla represented the State of Haryana.