Delhi High Court imposed Rs.50,000 costs on litigants for fabricating a false bias claim against a trial judge, terming it a “figment of infertile imagination,” while stressing that misleading assertions cannot be allowed to derail judicial proceedings.
The Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs.50,000 on two litigants who requested the transfer of a case pending in a district court, claiming that the trial judge had addressed the opposing party in a “friendly manner” during court proceedings.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee remarked that their transfer plea contained misleading and fantastical claims about the sitting judge, lacking any supporting evidence.
The High Court stated,
“The petitioners by way of the present petition are trying to cast unwarranted, fictious and fallacious aspersions by making flimsy, misleading and mythical assertions on a sitting Judge of the learned Trial Court, which are not only contrary to the records before this Court but also without any backing thereto. This Court, in any event, takes a serious objection to the filing of the present petition, and that too by making and cooking up an imaginary story,”
The Court further emphasized that the petition was based on mere whims and fabrications, describing it as a “figment of infertile imagination with baseless assertions.“
“Considering the averments made by the petitioners as also their conduct before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is based on mere whims and fancies. The present petition is nothing but a figment of infertile imagination of the petitioners with bald assertions without any basis.”
The underlying suit in the Tis Hazari District Court involved a rent recovery issue. The petitioners sought to transfer the case to a different judge, alleging that the Additional District Judge (ADJ) had favored the respondent in a “friendly manner.”
However, the Court noted that the petitioners had not submitted any affidavit from their counsel who appeared before the ADJ. Additionally, it observed that the petitioners continued to appear before the same judge after the alleged incident.
It added,
“Not stopping thereto, it is notable that learned counsel for petitioners also agrees that the very same petitioners had filed their written statement alongwith the statement of truth and admission/ denial affidavit of the documents of the respondents/ plaintiffs prior to 28.08.2025 itself,”
The Court also pointed out that the petitioners had previously filed a similar transfer request with the Principal District and Sessions Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, which they later withdrew. They failed to include a copy of that request with their current transfer petition.
As a result, the Court dismissed the plea with the following order,
“In view thereof, and finding no merit therein, the present petition along with applications, if any, is dismissed subject to cost of Rs.50,000 to be paid by the petitioners to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks.”
Advocate Indira Goswami represented the petitioners, Neeti Sharma and another, while Advocate Shruti Kapur represented the respondents, Kailash Gupta and others.
Case Title: Neeti Sharma & Anr. Vs Kailash Chand Gupta & Ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
