Recently, in a pointed rebuke to attempts to malign the judiciary, the Delhi High Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on two litigants for presenting baseless allegations against a sitting trial judge. The matter arose from a transfer petition filed in the case, concerning a rent recovery suit pending before the Tis Hazari District Court.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed while sharply criticizing the petition, "The petitioners by way of the present petition are trying to cast unwarranted, fictious and fallacious aspersions by making flimsy, misleading and mythical assertions on a sitting Judge of the learned Trial Court, which are not only contrary to the records before this Court but also without any backing thereto. This Court, in any event, takes a serious objection to the filing of the present petition, and that too by making and cooking up an imaginary story."
The Court observed that the petition was driven by "mere whims and fancies" and amounted to a figment of "infertile imagination," lacking any evidentiary basis. It highlighted that the petitioners had continued to appear before the same Additional District Judge (ADJ) even after the alleged incident and had failed to produce an affidavit from their counsel as evidence.
"Considering the averments made by the petitioners as also their conduct before this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is based on mere whims and fancies. The present petition is nothing but a figment of infertile imagination of the petitioners with bald assertions without any basis," the Court added.
The Court further noted procedural irregularities: the petitioners had previously filed a similar transfer application before the Principal District and Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, but had withdrawn it and failed to disclose this in their present petition.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the transfer plea with costs, stating, "In view thereof, and finding no merit therein, the present petition along with applications, if any, is dismissed subject to cost of ₹50,000 to be paid by the petitioners to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Lawyers Social Security and Welfare Fund within a period of two weeks."
Case Title: Neeti Sharma & Anr Vs. Kailash Chand Gupta & Ors.
Case No: TR.P.(C.) 180/2025
Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Indira Goswami
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Shruti Kapur
Picture Source :
