Kanwal Singh Alias Kamal vs Ut Of J&K And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 837 j&K

                                                                  S. No.48
             HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR & LADAKH
                            AT JAMMU

                                                LPA No. 32 of 2022 (O&M)

                                                Reserved on: 12.04.2022
                                                Pronounced on: 24.05.2022



Kanwal Singh alias Kamal                                        ...Appellant(s)


                    Through:- Mr. Aijaz Chowdhary, Adv.

                v/s

UT of J&K and ors.                                         .....Respondent (s)


                    Through:-


Coram:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE


                                      JUDGMENT

Rahul Bharti-J

1. The malaise of frivolous and manipulative litigation eroding the vitals of the administration of justice is what the present letters patent appeal as well as the writ petition, both ventured by the appellant, represent very disturbingly to this Bench. Very innocuous looking writ petition and the letters patent appeal, in fact, oozes out a situation, of serious judicial concern, aiming to mock the administration of justice which has been co- produced by the cunningness of the appellant and by complicity and casualness of the district public administration officials.

2. The operating factual background discerned by a bare as well as meaningful reading of the writ petition and letters patent appeal calls for exposition first.

3. The appellant filed a writ petition WP(C) no. 625/2022 on 22/03/2022 naming four respondents which included the respondent no. 2 & 3 being the SSP and SHO, Police Station, Rajouri and the respondent no. 4 being a private person namely Rashpal Singh son of Brij Lal. Array of the respondents is same in the letters patent appeal memo also.

4. By tone and tenor of the writ petition, the appellant meant to picture as if the respondent no. 3 i.e., SHO Police Station, Rajouri, acting under the extraneous influence of the private respondent no. 4, was not letting the appellant to carry on with his construction work at the site of his alleged ownership land in khasra nos. 203/204 village Rehtal, Rajouri in spite of the fact that the appellant was having an order for undertaking the construction from the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rajouri. The Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rajouri did not figure in the array of respondents in the appellant's writ petition.

5. The averments in the writ petition were presented in a fractured manner so as to disguise the real intent of the writ petition. In para 2 of the writ petition, the appellant on one hand alleges himself to be the owner of an undefined extent of land under khasra nos. 203 & 204 of Village Rehtal, district Rajouri and the very next averment therein alleges to be in possession of 7 marlas of land in khasra no. 203 and 3 marlas in khasra no. 204 with the consent of original owner namely Kamal Singh. It becomes pertinent to mention here, proceeding on the observation of this Bench, that while the name of the petitioner (appellant) given in the Memo of Parties and title of the writ petition is Kanwal Singh @ Kamal whereas in para 2 of the writ petition reference to name Kamal Singh as original owner from whom the appellant, speaking as the petitioner in the writ petition, got the possession of 07 marlas land in khasra no. 203 and 03 marlas in khasra no. 204, leaves one wondering if the petitioner Kanwal Singh @ Kamal and the person named Kamal Singh in para 02 are same or different persons or the appellant, as the writ petitioner, is benamidar/proxy person for third person who, in fact, has got the alleged possession of 10 marlas of land in khasra nos. 203/204 from Kanwal Singh @ Kamal. This hide and seek part of the writ petition will get exposed in the course of the judgment and that is going to be one of the reasons to be cited herein next for this Bench to take serious view of the matter not letting the appellant go away bearing the pride of conceit of having abused with dare the process of law up to the Division Bench of the High Court.

6. Now, the chronology of the situation gatherable from the documents accompanying the writ petition is being stated herein for unmasking the

actual gameplan of filing the writ petition by the appellant. The appellant herein and the respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, and so in the present letters patent appeal, are locked in a revenue appeal titled Rashpal Singh Vs Kamal Singh pending before the District Collector, Rajouri in which orders dated 25/03/2010 on mutations nos. 417 & 419 with respect to attestation of rights of tenant at will and ownership quo land in khasra nos. 201(19 marlas), 203(02 kanals) and 204(1.9 kanal) in Village Rehtal, Rajouri are supposedly forming subject matter. In the said revenue appeal, vide an interim order dated 27/02/2017, the District Collector, Rajouri has directed both the parties to maintain status quo as to the alienation of the said subject land. Copy of this order is on the file of the writ petition.

7. This revenue side appeal litigation while pending is followed by a civil suit filed on 04/08/2018 before the Court of Principal District Judge Rajouri. This suit has been filed by the respondent no.4 against four defendants namely (1) the appellant/writ petitioner herein, (2) Sarfraz son of Mohd. Jam, (3) Mashood S/o Haji Mir Hussain and (4) Bagh Hussain son of Haji Lal Din. Thus, the party position in the suit viz-a-viz the party position in the appellant's writ petition is that the plaintiff in the suit is the respondent no. 4 in the writ petition and the defendant no. 1 in the suit is the petitioner in the writ petition and the appellant in the present letters patent appeal.

8. Vide its ad interim ex-parte order dated 04/08/2018, the Court of Pr. District Judge, Rajouri ordered a temporary restraint against the defendants, the persons afore-referred, from obstructing the tractor road leading to the house of the plaintiff or encroaching/closing the pathway passing through the khasra no. 203min (03 kanal) and khasra no. 204(1.9 kanal) in Village Rehtal. Copy of this order of the Pr. District Judge Rajouri is on record of the writ petition.

9. This interim civil court order, being in currency, came to be directed to be implemented through In-charge Police Station Rajouri vide an order dated 03/01/2022 by the Court of Pr. District Judge Rajouri. This order copy is also on record of the writ petition.

10. The first chapter of the maliced script, of which the present LPA is now going to be the closure chapter, is set into play when Sarfaraz Hussain, one of the four defendants named in the suit before the Court of District Judge Rajouri, comes to submit an application dated 22/01/2022 to the District Development Commissioner, Rajouri in which the applicant Sarfaraz Hussain stating therein that he has purchased 10 marlas and 20 marlas land in khasra nos. 203/204 Village Rehtal from Kanwal Singh son of Behari Lal and started construction of a residential building but Rashpal Singh son of Brij Lal who has filed a fraud and fake case in his court (District Development Commissioner Court Rajouri) on the ground of encroachment of tractor road is interfering in the construction work, seeks the permission for construction in favour of the applicant Sarfaraz Hussain be given and that Rashpal Singh be restrained not to interfere in his construction work. This application is also on record of the writ petition. This application does not whisper even remotely as to under which provision of law the District Development Commissioner Rajouri has been approached for such permission as sought by Sarfaraz Hussain. This application for very obvious reasons was meant to circumvent the order dated 03/01/2022 of the Court of Pr. District Judge Rajouri directing the implementation of restraint order dated 04/08/2018 through Police.

11. Following the submission of said application dated 22/01/2022 so made by him to the District Development Commissioner Rajouri, the applicant i.e., said Sarfaraz Hussain then comes to file a writ petition WP(C) no. 326/2022 against four respondents, three of them being the District Development Commissioner Rajouri, SSP Rajouri, SHO Police Station Rajouri and Rashpal Singh, who is none else but the plaintiff in the civil suit, the appellant in the revenue appeal and the respondent no. 4 in the appellant's writ petition and present letters patent appeal.

12. This writ petition WP(C) 326/20202 of Sarfaraz Hussain came to be disposed of, on the very instant day of it being listed for very first hearing, on a seemingly innocuous submission of the learned Counsel appearing for Sarfaraz Hussain, and who incidentally happens to be the Counsel of the appellant herein and in the writ petition before the Single Bench in the present case, that he would feel satisfied in case the representation of his

i.e., Sarfaraz Hussain pending before the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri is considered and decided. It is bit intriguing that the respondent in the writ was the District Development Commissioner Rajouri but the direction was sought unto the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri.

13. Considering this submission of the appearing learned Counsel as being innocuous, the learned Single Bench of the High Court came to dispose of the WP(C) no. 326/2022 vide an order dated 23/02/2022 thereby directing the Deputy Commissioner Rajouri to consider and decide the representation, if any, of the petitioner Sarfaraz Hussain. This order of Single Bench is also on record of the writ petition of the present case, clearly meaning thereby there has taken place meeting of minds and candid sharing of the facts and documents between the appellant herein and Sarfaraz Hussain the petitioner in WP(C) no. 326/2022.

14. The next stage of the script was set into play when, presumably, by using the learned Single Bench order dated 23/02/2022 bearing direction for consideration and decision on the so referred representation of Sarfaraz Hussain, next actor i.e., the appellant herein comes to play his part and was able to generate an un-numbered report dated 12/03/2022 of the Patwari Addl. Dhanidhar and then getting an application presented before the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector (with the powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms), Rajouri asking for permission to carry out the construction work already initiated with regard to land under khasra nos. 203 & 204 in Village Rehtal, Rajouri. This application seems to have been instantly taken up resulting in passing of an order dated 19/03/2022 by the Add. Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri.

15. It was intriguing that while alleged grievance was that of Sarfaraz Hussain that his representation for construction was not being considered and decided by the District Development Commissioner Rajouri but the actual consideration and permission for construction is accorded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri in favour of the appellant. This Bench will not take it to be just a co-incidence. The text of this order needs to be reproduced herein next as the same would manifest the mindset and mind-state not only of the applicant, i.e., appellant

herein, but that of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Rajouri attending the passing of the said order which reads as under: -

"Whereas, the present application is moved by Sh. Kanwal Singh S/o Sh. Bihari Lai (respondent herein) R/o Choudhary Nar Tehsil and District Rajouri. The applicant apprised the court that the case titled above is sub-judice before this court and due to the instant appeal, which is sub-judice, the construction work is stopped and the non- applicants (appellants herein) in the garb of status quo order issued vide No:- ASD/DCR/33/2017 dated 27-02- 2017 are not allowing to carry out the construction work and deliberately interfering on the land under the possession of applicant. The applicant has requested that the permission be granted to carry out the construction work already initiated as the material is lying under open sky and decaying day by day thus putting applicant in huge loss. The applicant submitted an affidavit stating that if later on, the land under construction will come under the share of non-applicants (appellants herein) then he will be bound to vacate/demolished the structure at his own cost.

Heard the argument put forth by the applicant, the status quo/stay/interim order issued by this court vide No:- ASD/DCR/33/2017 dated 27-02-2017 is hereby vacated to the extent of land under construction tor which affidavit has been filed. The applicant (respondent herein) is accordingly allowed to proceed with construction work under the condition that outcome of the case shall be binding on him and he shall have to vacate the structure in case of decision against him. Copy of order shall go to Tehsildar Rajouri and SHO P/S Rajouri for compliance.

Put up on 29-03-2022 for further proceedings."

16. This order of allowing free run to carry on with the construction in favour of the appellant was even taken care to be forwarded to the Tehsildar Rajouri and SHO Police Station Rajouri for compliance as if the construction work was to be supervised by the two officials acting at the disposal of the appellant.

17. The bind in the script of the situation seems to have come to check the appellant and his co-actor Sarfaraz Hussain in enjoying the exploit of order dated 19/03/2022 of the Add. Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri when the SHO Police Station Rajouri, to whom direction to comply with the order dated 19/03/2022 of the Add. Deputy

Commissioner/Collector Rajouri was issued, came to find himself caught in catch 22 situation with the order dated 03/01/2022 of the Court of Learned Pr. District Judge, Rajouri operating upon him to implement the temporary restraint order dated 04/08/2018 operating against not only the appellant herein but three others including Sarfaraz on one hand whereas on the other hand the order dated 19/03/2022 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri allowing the construction work of the appellant also requiring him to ensure compliance.

18. Finding the helplessness of the SHO Police Station Rajouri in the situation in extending desired assistance for facilitating the construction, the appellant herein came to play, so to say, his master card of filing the present writ petition WP(C) no. 625/2022 portraying as if the SHO Police Station Rajouri is acting personally and abusing his authority and position in not allowing the appellant to carry on with the construction activity even when he i.e., the appellant has got the enabling exploit of an order dated 19/03/2022 of the Addl. Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri.

19. In his writ petition filed by the appellant, through same learned counsel who had rendered his service in WP(C) no. 326/2022 to the petitioner therein Sarfaraz Hussain, the relief sought for really unfolds the concealed intent not only of the appellant but also of Sarfaraz Hussain who seems to be the mastermind in setting up the appellant upfront and perhaps even tacit nod of the interested police official/s. In the writ petition, the reliefs sought for are reproduced herein as under:

"i. commanding and directing respondents not interfere into the construction work started by the petitioner under the garb of the orders dated 04.08.2018 and 03.01.2022 passed by the Trial Court in case title "Rashpal Singh v. Kamal Singh & Ors." and order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the respondent no.2 in case title "Rashpal Singh & Ors. v. Kamal Singh".

ii. Commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to direct the respondent no. 3 to allow the petitioner to raise the construction in view of the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Rajouri dated 19.03.2022.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be deemed just and expedient may also be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents."

20. The learned Single Bench declined indulgence in the matter and dismissed the writ petition in limine on the count firstly that in case the appellant was having any grievance concerning his construction allegedly being done on the strength of order dated 19/03/2022 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri, then he ought to have approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector Rajouri and secondly the writ petition involves disputed question of facts and also as to the cases filed between the private parties, so the writ petition was not entertainable by the High Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.

21. There is no doubt left as to the fact that the writ petition by the appellant was actually sponsored by Sarfaraz Hussain which is exhibited from the fact that in para 2 it is from Sarfaraz's perspective that it stood averred that the petitioner has purchased from Amar Singh and the counsel representing the case in both the writ petitions as well in the present letters patent appeal is same. The reading of the averments in the writ petition in particular para 4 & 5 clearly reflected that a civil suit was going on between the parties that is the appellant, Sarfaraz Hussain on one hand and the respondent no. 4 Rashpal Singh on the other hand and that there was operating court order dated 04/08/2018 from the Court of Pr. District Judge Rajouri. In the writ petition, the appellant avoided stating anything further as to why he and Sarfraz Hussain were not contesting the civil suit before the Court of Pr. District Judge Rajouri so as to get final order in the matter of temporary injunction application.

22. Thus, it became obvious to the learned Single Bench that third party angle was involved from the point of view of the civil suit so any direction in the writ would offend that. Thus, by a very brief judgment dated 24/03/2022, the learned Single Bench found the writ petition without any substance and dismissed the same.

23. Acting with impunity, as if hoodwinking of courts can run as matter of course for him, the appellant has ventured to file the present letters

patent appeal against the dismissal of his said writ petition by the judgment of the learned Single Bench.

24. Finding that there is not even an iota of incorrectness in the judgment of the learned Single Bench and that the letters patent appeal deserves an outright dismissal, this Bench is not letting the letters patent appeal part with its dismissal simpliciter as that would let the opportunity go waste to do some course correction so as to set and serve as an alarm for dealing with the tendency having become a habit of fretting and flirting with the process of law.

25. This Bench has laboured itself to carry out the scan of the case reminding itself of the clarion call of the Hon'ble Supreme Court spoken through the words of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y. V. Chandrachud in judgment 2017 (5) SCC 496 Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and another v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and others, in para 13 which is reproduced verbatim to honour its desired intendment. Para 13 reads as under:-

"13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth."

26. The present case is not only an exhibit of mentality to abuse the process of law but also that of circumvention of law which adds more serious dimension for the cognizance and response of this Court. In this drama of abuse and circumvention of process of law, the appellant has a co-participant by design and proxy which is Sarfaraz Hussain, the petitioner in WP(C) no. 326/2022, and by default the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Rajouri.

27. There is no scope for any doubt as to the fact that the submission of the application cum representation dated 22/01/2022 to the District

Development Commissioner Rajouri was an act of connivance between Sarfaraz Hussain and the appellant herein and that was just a ruse to use it as an illusion of a cause of action for filing the writ petition WP(C) no. 326/2022, then inviting its instant disposal from the learned Single Bench with an innocuous sounding submission for a direction upon the District Development Commissioner Rajouri to consider and decide the said application cum representation thereby earning court direction in form of order dated 23/02/2022 whereupon a namesake file processing takes place by a so-called Patwari report for setting up a safe pretext for the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri, as if suffering from suspension of application of his mind, to pass a readymade order dated 19/03/2022 reproduced above, as if the Additional District Commissioner/Collector Rajouri was a building construction sanction authority of the district.

28. The actual intent underlying this move and manoeuvre was to circumvent and undermine the operation of not only court order dated 04/08/2018 read with order dated 03/01/2022 of the Court of learned Principal District Judge Rajouri but also the adjudication of revenue appeal against mutations no. 417/419 pending before the District Collector Rajouri. Thus, the civil court along with its orders, revenue court along its order and the respondent no.4 Rashpal Singh along with his civil suit and revenue appeal were all left overreached by the intervention of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rajouri's order dated 19/03/2022. It is so obvious that if the SHO Police Station, Rajouri would not have the constraint of the civil court direction bearing upon him, the appellant and his co-actor Sarfaraz Hussain in the game plan would have seen their manipulation and machination go fully rewarded with the same very SHO Police Station Rajouri supervising the construction work in the name of compliance to the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rajouri.

29. The way and manner in which the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rajouri has come to pass the order dated 19/03/2022 giving direction, on asking, leaves even this Bench searching in futile the enabling legal basis/provision for passing such like order that too by an administrator. The only basis of passing such like order is ipse

dixit of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rajouri otherwise the order dated 19/03/2022, which is not meant to serve any official, public or statutory function but only private interest, has been passed without even mentioning as to under which capacity/authority in law and by reference to which judicial/quasi-judicial/administrative proceedings laying before him, the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri has passed the same and lastly also the reasons for his passing said order. Going by the nomenclature, as an Additional Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri, which is an administrative position, there is no and cannot be any provision of law for passing such like order particularly in commanding the Police to provide police presence for the construction work of the appellant, as a Collector Rajouri under the J&K Land Revenue Act, 1939 and/or Commissioner Agrarian Reforms under the Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 there is also no provision for serving such like order and lastly even the Rules of Natural Justice provide no scope for passing such like ex-parte order which has the effect of affecting the other person's lis pending before a civil court or other judicial forum. Thus, circumvention of law has been fully facilitated by and at the end of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector Rajouri by his order dated 19/03/2022 which if taken to its desired end and effect would render the judicial orders dated 04/08/2018 and 03/01/2022 of the Court of Principal District Judge Rajouri in the case meaningless. The brazenness of the situation in the appellant filing the writ petition WP(C) no. 625/2022 can be seen from the fact that the appellant literally reckoned the High Court to be an enforcement agency of the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Rajouri's order and despite being refused indulgence by the learned Single Bench has taken the liberty of coming before the letters patent bench in appeal.

30. In this display of abuse of process of law and circumvention of law, even the advocate representing the appellant has omitted to act in true spirit of advocacy. In both the writ petitions i.e., WP(C) no.326/2022 and WP(C) no. 625/2022, out of which the present letters patent appeal has come to be filed, it is the same advocate who has lend his name representing the petitioners in the said two writ petitions and also the appellant in the present letters patent appeal. Reading and perusal of the petition in WP(C) no. 625/2022 confirms the impression that it is Sarfaraz

Hussain's writ petition which has come to be retyped with only change of Memo of Parties. Para 11 and 12 of WP(C) no. 625/2022 would bear out this observation of the Court and that is the reason that the copy of order dated 23/02/2022 in WP(C) no. 326/2022 has come to be used in WP(C) no.625/2022, copy of application dated 22/01/2022 of Sarfaraz Hussain to the District Development Commissioner Rajouri have come to be readily used and produced. Thus, the advocate in the case very well knew that the object underlying the filing of both the writ petitions was to actually play foul with the Order dated 04/08/2018 read with 03/01/2022 of the Court of learned Principal District Judge Rajouri and that is where his professional conduct comes into question mark in becoming privy to litigation which potentially undermined the judiciary and the judicial system.

31. This Bench will make useful reference of the Kerala High Court judgment in case titled Vinod Kumar v. Registrar of Co-op. Societies reported in 2002 (1) KerLJ 414 to serve a reminder as to the duty and responsibility of an advocate in a cause and to the Court. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the same are read as under:

"1. A Law Graduate in the process of becoming an advocate takes an oath solemnly declaring that "I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by Law established and that I will endeavour to uphold the traditions, privileges and dignity of the Legal Profession and that I will loyally and faithfully discharge the duties of an Advocate to the best of my knowledge and judgment." Preamble to the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(c) of the Advocates Act in the matter of standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by advocates reads as follows :

"An Advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court, a privileged member of the community, and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his non-

professional capacity may still be improper for an Advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit." (emphasis supplied)

In Section 1 of the Rules dealing with the duty to Court at rule 4 it is provide, as follows :

"4. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the court, opposing counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. An Advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouth piece of the client, and shall exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in court." (emphasis supplied)

Section 11 dealing with duty to client at Rules 11 and 15 read as follows :

"11. An Advocate is bound to accept any brief in the courts or Tribunals or before any other authority in or before which be professes to practice at a fee consistent with his standing at the Bar and the nature of the case. Special circumstances may justify his refusal to accept a particular brief.

xx xx xx

15. It shall be the duty of an Advocate fearlessly to uphold the interests of his client by all fair and honourable means without regard to any unpleasant consequences to himself or any other. He shall defend a person accused of a crime regardless of his personal opinion as to the guilt of the accused, bearing in mind that his loyalty is to the law which requires that no man should be convicted without adequate evidence."

(emphasis supplied.)

These provisions indicate that in certain matters the duty of an Advocate to Court overrides his duty to his client. As for a client whatever be the means, he only aims at winning the case. But officers of the court and ministers of justice as they are, advocates have certainly other concerns in the interests of the sacred institution. His duty to his client is to protect the interests of his client only by fair and honourable means and the moment the advocate knows that the relief to his client could be obtained only by unfair and dishonourable means, he should refuse such a brief. Professional propriety demands such a sacrifice.

2. Matters of procedure is normally not in the know of the clients. It is an area where the advocate is expected to have sufficient knowledge and familiarity. Otherwise it would lead to indiscriminate filing of misconceived cases. Such reckless litigative misadventures (B.N. Srikrishna,

C.J. in Writ Appeal No. 188 of 2002) are liable to be put a stop to. The advocate has a duty to screen fraudulent and frivolous litigation at the instance of dubious clients. The advocate has first to apply his mind and see whether a case that is proposed to be filed is maintainable. He has to make sure that the case will not be a misuse or abuse of the process of court. It is said (sad ?) and unfortunate that nowadays no serious attention is shown in these areas.

Courts usually dismiss such frivolous cases by imposing costs on the parties. But there is no justice or justification in blaming and burdening the parties if they are otherwise innocent. It is the advocates who display procedural acrobatics resulting in abuse or misuse of the process of the court who are to be made liable in such cases. It is the advocates who are expected to know the procedures. As ministers of justice and officers of the court they are bound to guard the sacred institution, Hence when the keeper himself plays the poacher, courts should take appropriate steps including awarding of costs on such advocates."

32. This Bench is not meaning to comment about the merits/demerits of the orders of the Principal District Judge Rajouri but so long as the same are in effect, no collateral proceeding/order, that too administrative one, can even be conceived to overreach or override the same except at the cost of undermining and interference in the administration of justice. It needs to be reiterated and reinforced loud and clear to one and all that a judicial and/or quasi-judicial order/direction in any given case and carrying its effect is meant to be obeyed in letter and spirit by the parties to the lis until the same is set aside by remedy of appeal/revision but there is no room for any other public/administrative authority to over-reach a judicial/quasi-judicial order by a collateral jugglery which counts for a serious interference, amounting to contempt, in the administration of justice.

33. Thus, the close of this judgment deserves to end with a denunciation in sternest intent from this Court and for that the best course correction required is that the party which has mis-adventured itself in abuse of process of law must carry back home the burden of exemplary and deterrent costs so as to serve as a caveat for any prospective abuser of process of law about the return costs of attempting to take administration of justice for a ride. Thus, the appellant in the present case is burdened with costs of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) payable and to be deposited

by him before the Registrar Judicial, High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Jammu within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of this judgment. Default/failure on the part of the appellant to pay the costs will result in initiation of recovery proceedings for recovery of arrears of land revenue to be undertaken by the Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri on receiving of the communication from the Registrar Judicial Jammu. The recovery shall then take effect within fifteen days. The amount recovered shall be made available by the Registrar Judicial to be credited to the Advocate's Welfare Fund.

34. Letters patent appeal is dismissed.

                      (RAHUL BHARTI)             (DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR)
                          JUDGE                             JUDGE

JAMMU
24.05.2022
Paramjeet
                              Whether the order is speaking?         Yes/No
                              Whether the order is reportable?       Yes/No