LEGAL PROFESSION — Duty of candour and integrity — Responsibility of counsel — Filing of false affidavit — Professional standards reiterated.

A.S. No. 223 of 2025 — Decided on: 31 July 2025
Bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, JJ.
Counsel: Ms. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba, for Appellants — Mr. Siva Bhami Reddy S., for Respondent.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — Ss. 96 & Order 41 Rule 1 — Appeal against ex parte decree — Application for condonation of delay of 950 days — Rejection — Suppression of material facts — Abuse of process of Court.

Where the defendants had in fact appeared before the Trial Court through counsel, filed vakalatnama, were granted time to file written statement but failed to do so, and were set ex parte — held, plea that no summons were served and that decree was passed without knowledge of suit proceedings, is false and contrary to record.

The cause shown for condonation of delay held not sufficient — delay of 950 days not condoned — appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

Filing of affidavit containing incorrect averments amounting to suppression of material facts and attempt to mislead Court — Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on appellants.

LEGAL PROFESSION — Duty of candour and integrity — Responsibility of counsel — Filing of false affidavit — Professional standards reiterated.

Court observed that counsel must verify correctness of facts before drafting affidavit, especially when record of Trial Court clearly indicated appearance and service. While no action taken against counsel, Court admonished need for due diligence and adherence to professional integrity.

Cited:

• Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Addl. Commr. (Admn.), Bareilly Division, Bareilly (2010) 4 SCC 728.

• Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 398.

• Sciemed Overseas Inc. v. BOC India Ltd. (2016) 3 SCC 70.

• Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi (2011) 5 SCC 496.

• J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf (1993) 2 SCC 562.

• M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand (1984 Supp SCC 571).

• K. Anjinappa v. K.C. Krishna Reddy (2022) 17 SCC 625.

• O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86.

CASE SUMMARY

Facts:
The appellants (defendants in O.S. No. 11 of 2018, V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram) filed an appeal under Section 96 CPC with I.A. No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay of 950 days. They contended that no summons were served and that they became aware of the ex parte decree only during execution (E.P. No. 145 of 2022, Kerala).

Proceedings:
On 26-06-2025, the Division Bench called for a report on service of summons. The Trial Court’s report (30-06-2025) revealed that:

• Summons by post returned as “addressee left”.

• Vakalat filed on 26-09-2018 by advocates Sri N. Anoop Kumar and Smt. K. Andal for defendants 1 & 2.

• Time granted till 16-04-2019 for written statement.

• Defendants failed to file written statement and were set ex parte.

Held:
→ The assertion in the affidavit that summons were not served was false and contrary to the record.
→ The explanation offered later in the affidavit dated 03-07-2025 (that counsel was engaged by a “well-wisher” without knowledge) was disbelieved as an afterthought.
→ The appellants suppressed material facts and abused process of Court.

Order:

• I.A. No. 1 of 2025 for condonation of delay rejected.

• Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.

• Notice issued for suppression of facts.

• On 31-07-2025, Court found explanation unsatisfactory and imposed costs of ₹50,000/- payable to the A.P. State High Court Legal Services Committee within one month.

• Counsel’s affidavit accepted with cautionary observation to maintain professional verification standards.

RATIO DECIDENDI (KEY PRINCIPLES)

1. A party seeking equitable relief must approach Court with clean hands and disclose all material facts — suppression or concealment amounts to abuse of judicial process.
   (Oswal Fats, Kishore Samrite, Sciemed Overseas applied.)

2. Affidavit containing false averments or misleading statements constitutes abuse of process — even without contempt proceedings, Court may impose punitive costs.

3. Counsel’s duty: to verify factual instructions from record before filing pleadings or affidavits; professional integrity and diligence are the cornerstone of advocacy.
   (J.S. Jadhav; M. Veerabhadra Rao; O.P. Sharma; K. Anjinappa applied.)

4. Condonation of delay — where false cause shown and no bona fide explanation, Court cannot condone long delay merely on equity; limitation cannot be defeated by suppression.

DISPOSITION

I.A. No. 1 of 2025 rejected. Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation. Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on appellants, payable to A.P. State High Court Legal Services Committee within one month.

Analysis :

I. Factual Background

The appellants, A.S. Traders and its proprietor A. Safar AN, were the defendants in O.S. No. 11 of 2018 filed by MGR Rice Industries, Polamuru, before the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
The suit was for recovery of money based on an alleged business transaction supported by a ledger account.

The Trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 11.04.2022, holding that despite service of summons, defendants did not appear or contest.

The appellants, nearly 950 days after the decree, preferred an appeal under Section 96 CPC read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC, accompanied by I.A. No. 1 of 2025 seeking condonation of delay.

II. Procedural Trajectory Before the High Court

1. Contention in I.A. No. 1 of 2025:
   The appellants averred that no summons were served, and they became aware of the decree only during execution proceedings (E.P. No. 145/2022) in Kerala.

2. Court’s Initial Direction (26.06.2025):
   The Division Bench, noting the assertion of non-service, called for a factual report from the Trial Court regarding service of summons.

3. Trial Court’s Report (30.06.2025):
   It revealed:

   • Summons by post returned “addressee left.”

   • Vakalatnama filed on 26.09.2018 by advocates Sri N. Anoop Kumar and Smt. K. Andal for defendants 1 & 2.

   • Time for written statement extended till 16.04.2019.

   • Defendants failed to file written statement → set ex parte.

   This directly contradicted the appellants’ assertion of ignorance.

4. High Court Order (03.07.2025):
   Held that the ground of “no service” was false, rejected the plea of want of jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, and dismissed I.A. No. 1 of 2025.
   The appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
   However, noticing deliberate suppression, the Court issued show-cause notice to appellants for misleading the Court.

5. Affidavit Filed by 2nd Appellant:
   The appellant claimed ignorance of the vakalat filed in 2018, asserting that it was done by a “well-wisher.” He tendered an unconditional apology.

6. Affidavit of Counsel (Ms. Kalla Tulasi Durgamba):
   Stated that she drafted the affidavit based on her clients’ instructions and the trial court judgment, particularly para 4 (“despite receipt of summons…”), and that she acted bona fide.

7. Final Order (31.07.2025):

   • The Bench rejected the explanation of the appellants, finding it false and an afterthought.

   • Found suppression of material facts and abuse of process.

   • Imposed costs of ₹50,000/- payable to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee.

   • Cautioned the counsel but refrained from proceeding against her personally.

III. Issues Considered

1. Whether the appellants had shown “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 950 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act?

2. Whether the claim of non-service of summons and want of knowledge of the suit proceedings was true?

3. Whether filing a false affidavit amounts to abuse of process and warrants penal consequences?

4. What is the professional responsibility of an advocate in drafting pleadings and affidavits based on client instructions?

IV. Findings & Judicial Reasoning

1. False Affidavit and Suppression of Facts

The Bench observed that the record conclusively proved service and appearance through counsel in the trial court. The appellants’ affidavit claiming “no summons served” was contrary to record.

“Consequently, the ground as stated for condonation of delay that the summons were not served is not correct and is contrary to the record.” (para 9)

Hence, the plea of ignorance was rejected outright as false and misleading.

2. Jurisdictional Objection

The appellants argued that the dispute, being commercial in nature, should have been filed before a Commercial Court.
The Bench noted that the record itself showed the file was transferred to the Commercial Court, Visakhapatnam, and returned to the Rajamahendravaram Court since the transaction lacked the nature of a legal agreement attracting the Commercial Courts Act.
Hence, jurisdictional challenge was meritless.

3. Abuse of Process of Court

The Court found the appellants’ conduct amounted to abuse of the process of Court, citing classic authorities:

• Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. — duty of full disclosure.

• Kishore Samrite — litigant cannot “play hide and seek” with the court.

• Sciemed Overseas & Muthu Karuppan — filing false affidavits pollutes the stream of justice.

“The appellants have abused the process of the Court and have not approached this Court with clean hands.”

Accordingly, the Bench invoked its inherent powers to impose exemplary costs (₹50,000) to deter misuse.

4. Professional Conduct of Counsel

The Bench distinguished between client suppression and counsel’s ethical duty.
Though the counsel had acted on instructions, the Court held she ought to have verified the record before drafting the affidavit.

By invoking J.S. Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf, M. Veerabhadra Rao v. Tek Chand, and O.P. Sharma v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, the Bench emphasized the moral integrity, duty of candour, and due diligence expected of advocates.

“Given these virtues, other qualifications will follow of their own account. This is the reason why legal profession is regarded as a noble one.”

The Court, however, stopped short of disciplinary directions, merely recording a cautionary observation.

V. Legal Analysis

A. Condonation of Delay — Discretion not a Right

The case reaffirms that Section 5 of the Limitation Act requires bona fide explanation.
A false cause or suppression disentitles the applicant from equitable relief.
Here, the delay was not only unexplained but justified through fabricated narrative, hence the discretionary relief was rightly denied.

B. Clean Hands Doctrine

The Bench reiterated the “clean hands” principle, rooted in equity and consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
A litigant who misleads or conceals material facts forfeits his right to be heard on merits.

C. Duty of Candour in Affidavits

An affidavit is a solemn statement on oath. Filing an affidavit contrary to record constitutes perjury or contempt, apart from inviting punitive costs.
The Bench’s reliance on Sciemed Overseas underscores that such conduct must be “curbed with a strong hand.”

D. Advocate’s Professional Obligation

The Court’s extensive quotation from Sharaswood (via J.S. Jadhav) elevates the discussion beyond case-specific conduct to a moral reflection on legal ethics.
It reiterates that:

• Advocacy is a calling, not a trade.

• The lawyer’s integrity is indispensable to justice.

• Verification of facts is part of professional diligence.

Thus, while showing leniency to counsel, the Court reaffirmed the high ethical threshold of the profession.

VI. Significance of the Judgment

1. Doctrinal Reinforcement:
   The decision strengthens the jurisprudence on false affidavits, suppression of facts, and abuse of process — extending the Supreme Court’s reasoning to appellate procedural contexts.

2. Judicial Accountability of Litigants:
   The Court directly confronted false pleading, imposing monetary costs rather than merely dismissing the appeal — signalling deterrence.

3. Ethical Guidance for Advocates:
   By reproducing Sharaswood’s dictum and apex court precedents, the Bench converted the judgment into a teaching document on legal ethics.

4. Procedural Purity:
   It underscores that litigation integrity is foundational — procedural delay cannot mask dishonesty.

VII. Critical Evaluation

From a jurisprudential standpoint, this judgment is both stern and instructive.

• It blends procedural discipline (limitation law) with moral accountability (truthfulness in pleadings).

• The ₹50,000 cost is proportionate — punitive yet non-vindictive.

• The Bench correctly distinguished between misleading client conduct and counsel’s limited culpability, balancing justice with fairness.

However, one could argue that the Court could have directed initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., given the finding of deliberate suppression. Yet, the Bench’s approach of closure upon apology reflects judicial restraint and pragmatism.

VIII. Conclusion

The judgment in A.S. Traders v. MGR Rice Industries (A.S. No. 223/2025) stands as a cogent reaffirmation of judicial intolerance toward dishonesty in pleadings and a restatement of the ethical obligations of advocates.

It teaches that:

• “Equity aids the vigilant, not the fraudulent.”

• “Candour is not optional in advocacy; it is the lifeblood of justice.”

Accordingly, the High Court’s order — dismissing the appeal, refusing condonation, and imposing costs — is not merely a procedural ruling, but a juridical message on the sanctity of truth in litigation.