A Judge Is A Judge Wherever Placed In Judicial Hierarchy: Delhi High Court Raps Counsel For Attempting To Intimidate Trial Judge
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia, hearing a petition by a defendant challenging trial court orders closing his evidence and declining to reopen it, refused to interfere and allowed the petition to be withdrawn, leaving the trial court directions intact. The Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, noted the conduct of the advocate for the petitioner, alleged to be an attempt to intimidate the trial court judge, and stated that a judge is a judge wherever she/he is placed in the judicial hierarchy. The dispute arises from a civil suit in which the defendant sought multiple adjournments in leading defence evidence, and the High Court recorded that the interests of both sides must be balanced when managing trial timelines.
The petitioner challenged two orders of the trial court dated 07.11.2025 and 18.11.2025. The trial court had closed the defence evidence after granting multiple opportunities over an extended period, during which no evidence was led by the petitioner/defendant. Following closure of evidence, the petitioner moved an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking reopening of defence evidence. That application was dismissed by a detailed order dated 18.11.2025.
The petitioner contended before the High Court that further opportunity was required to lead defence evidence and argued that since the matter had been referred to mediation, the trial court ought not to have closed the evidence. The petitioner also asserted that an incorrect statement regarding settlement had been made by previous counsel. The trial court had recorded that the petitioner himself had stated that a settlement had been reached and later retracted the statement upon further questioning.
The Court recorded that the petition was “completely frivolous and filed with oblique purposes.” It noted that evidence had been closed because “despite last and final opportunity granted on multiple occasions, no evidence was led.” The Court stated that the only submission advanced for reopening evidence was that mediation was pending.
The Court recorded that the petitioner had made a false statement before the trial court regarding settlement and stated: “there is no explanation as to why the petitioner/defendant made a false statement before the trial court.”
The Court reproduced the trial court’s order, which recorded that the application was based on “entirely false facts,” that “submissions made in this application on affidavit are false,” and that repeated adjournments had been taken since 05.04.2023. The trial court had also recorded: “this application is frivolous and vexatious and is thus, dismissed.”
The High Court stated that the petitioner had been “protracting the trial for more than two years on one or the other pretext,” and that on 07.11.2025 the petitioner “falsely stated before the trial court that matter stood settled.”
Regarding its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court stated: “I find no infirmity, much less any perversity in the impugned order that would call for interference of this Court.”
The Court further recorded observations on the conduct of counsel. It stated that attempts were being made by some lawyers “to somehow overawe the judge, especially a judge in the District Courts.” It stated that counsel continued to argue in a high-pitched tone and said he practised before the Supreme Court. The Court recorded: “he audaciously stated that he would not argue the case and that the court is free to hear arguments.”
The Court addressed counsel’s claim that he had not refused to argue, stating: “if that was so, it remains unexplained as to why he did not address final arguments on being called upon.” The Court also stated: “the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must also include a duty vested in this Court to supervise and ensure that decorum in the District Courts also is not dented in any manner.”
During dictation, counsel expressed remorse, and the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition.
The Court recorded that “learned counsel for petitioner/defendant expresses remorse over his conduct before the trial court, and on instructions of his client present in courtroom seeks permission to withdraw this petition instead of the same being dismissed on merits. The petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Om Prakash Mishra, Advocate; Mr. Mayank Pandey, Advocate
Case Title: Sandeep Kumar v. Kaptain Singh Rathi Through LRs
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10600
Case Number: CM(M) 2308/2025
Bench: Justice Girish Kathpalia
