An Advocate Shall Not Consider Himself a Mere Mouthpiece of the Client: Bombay High Court Rebukes Obstructionist and Lawyer in Execution Delay Tactics

In a recent important judgement Bombay High Court delivered a significant ruling condemning the misuse of the judicial process through fabricated documents and deliberate delay. The Court, speaking through Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, dismissed the civil revision with exemplary cost of ₹2,00,000 and ordered the immediate execution of an eviction decree that had been delayed for nearly a decade. The Court also directed that an enquiry be initiated against Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle for prima facie professional misconduct.

“An Advocate shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client and shall exercise his own judgment”

The origin of the dispute dates back to a suit filed in 1996 by the landlord alleging that the original tenant had sublet the suit premises to Defendant No. 3, who happens to be the father of the present applicant, Ballam Trifla Singh. The premises in question, measuring approximately 990 sq. ft., were being used for running a hotel named Linkway Hotel by the Applicant.

The trial court passed a decree of eviction in 2016 after nearly 20 years of litigation. The decree was granted on grounds of unlawful subletting. Though an appeal was filed by Defendant No. 3, there was no stay in operation. However, in 2017, Ballam Trifla Singh, the son of the judgment debtor, initiated obstructionist proceedings by claiming ownership of the premises through a sale deed allegedly executed in 1990.

The principal issue before the Court was the legality and veracity of the documents submitted by the applicant and the obstructionist intent behind the proceedings.

Justice Jamdar observed, “This is a case where the Applicant i.e. Obstructionist is the son of the Judgment Debtor… Both the Courts have recorded concurrent finding that the documents on the basis of which Applicant - Obstructionist was claiming right of ownership are manipulated and fraudulent documents.”

It was pointed out by the Court that the alleged sale deed dated 26th November 1990, which formed the foundation of the applicant’s claim, was both “unregistered and unstamped”. Further, it was executed when the applicant was still a minor. The Court noted: “The applicant has relied on manipulated and fabricated documents.”

In his affidavit, the applicant claimed he purchased the premises from one Mr. Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali. However, an earlier affidavit dated 10th August 1996 submitted to the Municipal Corporation revealed that the applicant had, in fact, claimed to have purchased the premises from a completely different person—Mr. Shaikh Faqir Mohammed Abdul Latif. The Court noted the contradiction, stating, “It is significant to note that the applicant has not produced any document to show that either said Momin Rajubhai Sawaj Ali or said Shaikh Faqir Mohammed Abdul Latif are the owners of the suit premises.”

Both the trial and appellate courts had found that the applicant “has no independent right to use and possess the suit premises” and that “the documents are manipulated and the documents are prepared contrary to the original record.”

“One who comes to the Court must come with clean hands”

When the matter came up for pronouncement of judgment, Advocate Vijay Kurle appeared and sought adjournment, despite the fact that arguments had already been fully heard on 4th April 2025. Justice Jamdar took serious note of this conduct:

“The said conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate clearly shows that he is completely aware that the matter is kept today for passing order and to ensure that the order is not passed today and the proceedings are delayed, Mr. Vijay Kurle has appeared and made the said request.”

The Court cited the Bar Council of India Rules and reminded that:

“An advocate shall act at all times in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court. An advocate shall conduct himself with dignity and self-respect… An advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means… He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client.”

Calling the conduct “prima facie misconduct,” the Court held: “Mr. Vijay Kurle has acted in complete breach of the said rules. He has acted as agent/mouthpiece of the Applicant and not as the Officer of the Court.” Accordingly, the Court directed the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to conduct an enquiry into his actions.

Justice Jamdar summarised the abuse as follows: “A decree has been passed in a Suit filed in the year 1996 on 15th December 2016 i.e. after a period of 20 years and 8 months. Thereafter, the Obstructionist proceedings were filed in 2017… Both the Courts have concurrently held that the documents produced by the Obstructionist are fraudulent.”

Quoting the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the Court reiterated: “A person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court.”

Likewise, referencing Auroville Foundation v. Natasha Storey, it added: “Doctrine of ‘clean hands and non-suppression of material facts’ applies with full force to every proceedings before any judicial forum.”

In strong language, Justice Jamdar referred to the Supreme Court’s caution in Jini Dhanrajgir v. Shibu Mathew, stating: “The difficulties of litigants in India indeed begin when they have obtained a decree… The Court had to be careful to ensure that the process of the Court and the laws of procedure were not abused.”

Given the egregious delay and fraudulent conduct, the Court ordered that: “Even if the Civil Revision Application is dismissed with exemplary cost, the same will not be sufficient to render justice.”

Accordingly, the Court passed the following operative order:

“The Civil Revision Application No.189 of 2025 is dismissed with cost of ₹2,00,000.”

“The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed with respect to the suit premises with all the powers under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure.”

“The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa is directed to conduct enquiry in the conduct of Mr. Vijay Kurle, learned Advocate.”

The judgment not only brings closure to a 29-year-long litigation but also firmly reinforces the principle that fraudulent obstruction of justice and professional misconduct by lawyers will not be tolerated. By holding both the obstructionist and the advocate accountable, the Bombay High Court upheld the sanctity of court process and sent a strong message against litigation abuse.

Date of Decision: 9th April 2025