The order within the case was issued by Gauhati High Court’s single-judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi on March 23, 2023.
The Gauhati High Court has fined two advocates ₹50,000 every for dragging a case for greater than six years on behalf of a non-existing consumer in a “frivolous litigation”.
The order within the case was issued by the single-judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi on March 23.
Dismissing the case filed in 2016, the court docket discovered it “astonishing” that the judicial course of was “successfully taken for a ride” for greater than half a decade.
The two advocates — H.S. Kalsi and R.S. Sadiyal — had been discovered to have signed the ‘vakalatnama’, a doc authorising an advocate to struggle a case on behalf of a consumer, to symbolize the petitioner named Beolin Kharbhih.
The petitioner claimed to be a distant relative of 1 Sankar Prasad Nath, a former Deputy Superintendent of Police within the CID of Assam police.
According to the petitioner, the police officer was killed in a hit-and-run case for pursuing some delicate circumstances involving some politically influential folks. His spouse additionally died below mysterious circumstances however no motion was taken regardless of FIRs and a number of other representations to the authorities involved, the petitioner claimed.
A decide of the High Court of Meghalaya was amongst 26 folks made events in Kharbhih’s case filed in 2016. During the course of the litigation, the standing report filed by the federal government advocate said that the CID couldn’t discover any clue to determine the existence of the petitioner.
“…investigation revealed that no person in the name of Ms Beolin Kharbhih (petitioner) exists,” the court docket’s order stated.
The court docket finally directed the petitioner’s counsel to safe her private look. After taking time on a number of events, the advocate claiming to symbolize her submitted earlier than the court docket on March 9 that the discover issued to the petitioner by registered submit was returned with an endorsement saying there was “no such person”.
“In the history of the judicial system, frivolous litigation is not something unknown.” Justice Medhi stated. But “what is astonishing is that the judicial process has been successfully taken for a ride for the last more than six years by instituting and continuing a case by a non-existing person”.
Noting that the petition was filed in a “well-planned manner” to point a “conspiracy”, the court docket requested the Bar Council of Assam to take acceptable steps towards the individuals concerned.
