It has definitely come as a big bolt from the blue that the District Court of Patiala House Courts in New Delhi in a most recent judgment titled Mehmood Pracha Vs Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan Through Next Friend Sh. Dhananjay Yashwant Chandrachud in RCA DJ No. 27/2025 that was pronounced just recently on 18.10.2025 has not only just dismissed a plea that had been filed by eminent, senior lawyer – Mehmood Pracha who sought to declare Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment as null and void but also slapped a whooping Rs 6 lakh costs on him. It may be recalled that the Trial Court had earlier dismissed his plea in April 2025 and had also imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh for abuse of process.
It must be borne in mind that Pracha aggrieved by the Trial Court’s order had challenged the order before the District Court but what further compounded Pracha’s woes was that the District Court not only just upheld the Trial Court order but went further ahead and enhanced the cost to a whooping Rs 6 lakh that was imposed on him to be paid calling the case “frivolous”!
To recapitulate, it may be recalled that Mehmood Pracha had filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the 2019 Ayodhya judgment was null and void. He asked for a direction from the court for a “fresh adjudiciation” of the matter. It may also be noted that Pracha also made Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan a defendant to his suit through next friend Dhananjay Chandrachud who is former CJI.
It is worth mentioning here that District Judge of Patiala House Courts in New Delhi – Hon’ble Mr Dharmender Rana while coming down heavily on Pracha minced absolutely just no words to hold most unequivocally that:
Pracha’s case was frivolous, misconceived and an abuse of the judicial process.” The Court added that moreover, Pracha had wrongly impleaded former CJI Dr DY Chandrachud as the “next friend” of the deity despite not naming other necessary parties from the Ayodhya litigation. What also we must bear in mind is that this judgment also clarified that, in his speech, Justice Chandrachud had not referred to Ram Lalla but had said that he had prayed to God for a solution in the Ayodhya case.
It was also concluded by the Court that Chandrachud’s reference to “praying before God” was a personal spiritual reflection and did not amount to any admission of bias or external interference. To put it differently, we thus see very clearly that this judgment fully and firmly reinforces the finality of the Apex Court’s Ayodhya verdict in 2019 and sends a clear message that “A case that has been decided by the top court which cannot be re-opened again on one pretext or the other” and frivolous litigation that is aimed at challenging judicial authority shall not be entertained rather costs will be imposed and that too heavy costs as we see so very manifestly in this leading case also! It was also made indubitably clear by the Court that personal faith or spiritual reflections by Judges do not compromise judicial impartiality.
It was also held explicitly by the Court that Pracha’s suit was barred by the Judges Protection Act, 1985, which prohibits civil or criminal proceedings against judges for actions performed in the course of their judicial duties. The Court further lamented the growing tendency to target public functionaries after their retirement and urged both the judiciary and the Bar to act as sentinels against such “malicious and malefic assaults.” It all hinges now on Pracha whether to appeal in Delhi High Court against this latest judgment which has not only rejected his plea but also imposed a whooping cost of Rs 6 lakh on him or not to appeal! I am sure that he will definitely appeal but still we have to keep our fingers crossed on this till he appeals!
At the very outset, this latest judgment authored by District Judge – Hon’ble Mr Dharmender Rana HJS of Patiala Hose Courts of New Delhi District sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
The appellant herein, who happens to be a practicing advocate, assails the judgment dated 25.04.2025, whereby the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court.”
To put things in perspective, the Court envisages in para 2 that:
The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal can be adumbrated herein as under: During a public address at Kaneser, Pune, Maharashtra, Sh. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud; Hon’ble Former CJI, has delivered a speech in Marathi. The appellant has claimed that the Hon’ble CJI in his public address has admitted that the judgment dated 09.11.2019, delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Appeal No. 10866-10867/2010 and connected matters titled as M. Siddiq (D) through LRs Vs. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ayodhya case’) was in terms of the solution provided to him by Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman (respondent herein and one of the plaintiffs in the bunch of matters in Ayodhya case bearing Regular Suit No. 236 of 1989).”
Abuse of Process of Law and Imposition of Cost:
Most significantly, the Court encapsulates in para 11 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that:
11.1 It has already been observed above that the appellant has opted to challenge the Ayodhya case verdict on absolutely frivolous grounds, even without bothering to go through the verdict. The insistence of the appellant to implead the Hon’ble CJI, soon after his retirement, speaks volumes against his oblique intent.
11.2 It is not a case of an ordinary simpleton or a naive litigant, who is not well versed with the legal nitty gritties, but a case filed by a fairly senior counsel. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Bar Council Of Maharashtra v. M.V Dabholkar And Others (1976) 2 SCC 291 has underscored the pious duties of the members of the Bar in the following words:
“Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise and so the leaven of commercial competition or procurement should not vulgarise the legal profession……... For the practice of Law with expanding activist horizons, professional ethics cannot be contained in a Bar Council rule nor in traditional cant in the books but in new canons of conscience which will command the members of the calling of justice to obey rules of morality and utility, clear in the crystallized case-law and concrete when tested on the qualms of high norms simple enough in given situations, though involved when expressed in a single sentence.”
11.3 There cannot be any second thought about the right of a citizen to seek judicial redressal of his grievances by instituting a suit or defending a claim but at the same time the right to litigate cannot be reduced into an exercise in wager or an activity of amusement. Time is a precious judicial entity which ought to be sagaciously invested in serious litigation and cannot be permitted to be squandered by unscrupulous litigants. A luxurious and frivolous litigation is a direct onslaught upon the fundamental rights of the sincere litigants patiently waiting in the queue for redressal of their legal grievances. The already overburdened dockets of the Court cannot afford the menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation. The issue becomes all the more concerning when a responsible officer of the Court opts to file a frivolous litigation. The menace of luxurious and frivolous which tends to impede the unsullied flow of Justice needs to be dealt with an iron hand. Therefore, it is perfectly just and legitimate to impose costs while dismissing frivolous litigations. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon (i) Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi Vs. NCT of Delhi 2013 SCC Online Delhi 4788 (ii) Surender Tomar (Thr. Lr Smt. Saroj) Vs. DDA and Anr. CRP No. 142/14, CM No. 15293/14 and 15294−15295/14 date of decision: 16.09.2014 (iii) Ram Rameshwari Devi and others Vs. Nirmala Devi and others, ((MANU/SC/0169/2011).
11.4 Having satisfied myself with the requirement of imposition of costs upon luxurious and frivolous litigations, I now proceed to examine the propriety of the quantum of cost.
11.5 Admittedly, section 35(A) of the CPC merely permits the imposition of costs to the tune of Rs.3,000/- only. The initial line of judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court suggests that the costs beyond Rs.3,000/- ought not be imposed. In the case of (i) Ashok Kumar Mittal Vs. Ram Kumar Gupta (2009) 2 SCC 656, (ii) Vinod Seth vs Devinder bajaj (2010) 8 SCC 1 and (iii) Sanjeev kr Jain vs Raghubir Saran Charitable trust and ors (2012) 1 SCC 455, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the costs should not breach the statutory limit of Rs.3,000/-.
11.6 However, it would be apt to mention here that all the above quoted judgments were passed by two Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Eventually, a three Judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified the issue in the matter of Maria Margarida sequeira Fernandes and others vs Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (2012) 5 SCC 370 and observed here as under:
“82. This Court in a recent judgment in Ramrameshwari Devis aptly observed at p. 266, para 43 that unless wrongdoers are denied profit from frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to prevent it. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common experience that the court’s otherwise scarce time is consumed or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases. In this very judgment, the Court provided that this problem can be solved or at least can be minimised if exemplary costs is imposed for instituting frivolous litigation. The Court observed at pp. 267-68. para 58 that imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and/or ordering prosecution in appropriate cases would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases, the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings”
(Emphasis supplied.)
Similarly, another three judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Dnyandeo sabaji naik v Pradnya Prakash( 2017) 5 SCC 496 has once again reiterated the requirement of imposing exemplary and prohibitive costs upon frivolous litigations in the following words:
“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.
14. Courts across the legal system-this Court not being an exception-are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalises such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11.7 Evidently, imposition of exemplary costs in the instant matter was not only desirable but a mandatory duty cast upon the Ld. Trial Court. Thus, no fault can be ascribed to the approach of the Ld. Trial Court in imposition of the cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this leg of contention also.”
Equally significant is that the Court then hastens to add in para 12 propounding that:
Before parting, there is another aspect which needs to be dealt with by this Court. Of late, a very negative trend is discernible in the society. It is now a fad to target important public functionaries upon their demitting offices. Some unscrupulous litigants nurtures a misconceived notion that upon demitting office an ex-public functionary becomes vulnerable and prone to all kind of malicious and malefic assault. I may gainfully reproduce herein the observations of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Naresh Sharma Vs. Union of India and Others 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4254 wherein, while dealing with a similar situation, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed here as under:
“94. While this Court is sensitive that the doors of the Courts are open to every citizen who seeks redressal in good faith, the Courts cannot suffer in silence, the unending filing of baseless claims unsupported by any document against every possible past and present, Government and Private authority of our country, every public institute, the leaders who have passed away including the freedom fighters and past and present Supreme Court Judges. This Court does not deem it appropriate that the Government and other authorities should even be burdened with the task of defending the petition or this Court being troubled for adjudicating the frivolous petition.””
It is worth noting that the Court notes in para 13 that:
Therefore, Courts of this country owes a duty to ensure a peaceful and pleasant evening to the persons who have devoted their life to the service of nation. Not only the Courts but even the bar owes an important duty to diligently act as sentinel so that the impurities are sieved out at the entry gates itself. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the prophetic words of Hon’ble Justice Krishna Iyer in the matter of T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 wherein Hon’ble Apex Court had reminded the Bar Council of its role in limiting the filing of frivolous litigation as under:
“...The pathology of litigative addiction ruins the poor of this country and the Bar has a role to cure this deleterious tendency of parties to launch frivolous and vexatious cases.
***
…….It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation refusing to be beguiled by dubious clients. And remembering that an advocate is an officer of justice he owes it to society not to collaborate in shady actions…...”
(Emphasis Supplied).”
It would be instructive to note that the Court while underscoring the need for imposing costs hastened to add in para 15 noting that:
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj, (2010) 8 SCC 1 had highlighted the intended goal for having the provision of costs, as under:
“23. The provision for costs is intended to achieve the following goals:
(a) It should act as a deterrent to vexatious, frivolous and speculative litigations or defences. The spectre of being made liable to pay actual costs should be such, as to make every litigant think twice before putting forth a vexatious, frivolous or speculative claim or defence.
(Emphasis supplied)”.”
Adding more to it, the Court further observes in para 16 that:
Evidently, the cost imposed by the Ld. Trial Court has failed to achieve the intended goal of deterrent effect. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in order to effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation the cost amount needs to be suitably enhanced to fetch the desired results.”
It would be worthwhile to note that the Bench then notes in para 17 directing and holding that:
Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed with an additional cost of Rs.5,00,000/- to be deposited with DLSA, ND. The total cost of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by Ld. Trial Court + Rs.5,00,000/- imposed by this Court) be deposited within 30 days from today failing which Ld. Secretary, DLSA (ND) shall initiate appropriate action for recovery of the cost amount.”
In addition, the Court further directs in para 19 that:
A copy of the instant order along with the TCR be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information.”
Finally, the Court then concludes by directing and holding in para 20 that, “File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.”
Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh
