The Delhi High Court recently permitted the withdrawal of a petition after it came to light that the case was built on judicial precedents that either did not exist or had been misquoted.
Justice Girish Kathpalia was hearing a plea filed by the Greenopolis Welfare Association (GWA) against a group of homebuyers. During the hearing, counsel for the respondents pointed out that several of the case laws cited in the petition were fabricated or incorrectly referenced. Taking note of this, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
The order recorded:
“The learned senior counsel and counsel appearing for respondents submit that they would take appropriate steps since some of the judicial precedents cited on behalf of petitioner do not even exist and in some of the precedents, the quoted portions do not exist. At request of both sides, it is made clear that submissions advanced today were confined only to the impugned orders and nothing else.”
Consequently, the Court stated:
“As requested, the petition and the accompanying applications are dismissed as withdrawn.”
The petition challenged a trial court order by which 17 additional plaintiffs were impleaded in a suit against the Association without amended pleadings, effectively curtailing the Association’s statutory period to file its Written Statement. The homebuyers had initially instituted the suit against the Association before the trial court.
The petition raised eyebrows due to its reliance on non-existent or misquoted judicial rulings. For example:
• It cited paragraph 73 of Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, (1972) 3 SCC 850, whereas the judgment contains only 27 paragraphs in total.
• It referred to Chitra Narain v. DDA, 2000 (87) DLT 276, a ruling that does not exist in the Delhi Law Times (DLT) reports.
• Other cited precedents either did not contain the quoted portions or were misrepresented altogether.
The Court observed that such glaring inaccuracies in a petition are serious and noted that the respondents’ counsel intended to take further steps regarding this issue.
Representation
• For the Petitioner (GWA): Mr. Rakesh Tiku, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Kohli and Mr. Ashish, Advocates.
• For the Respondents:
• Mr. N. Hariharan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Mr. Prateek Bhalla, Ms. Punya Rekha Angara, Mr. Aman Akhtar, Ms. Vasundhara N., Ms. Sana Singh, Ms. Vasundhara Raj Tyagi, Mr. Arjan Singh Mandla, and Ms. Gauri Ramachandran, Advocates for R-1 to 15.
• Mr. N. Hariharan and Mr. Abhijat, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Ajay Sabharwal and Mr. Jai Sikand, Advocates for R-1 (plaintiffs no. 1 to 4).
• Mr. Sanjoy, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ajay Sabharwal, Mr. Jai Sikand, and Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Advocates for R-1 (plaintiffs no. 5 to 19).
• Mr. Neeraj Dev Gaur, Advocate for R-1 (plaintiffs no. 20 & 21).
• Mr. Tushar Sannu and Ms. Shaoni Das, Advocates for R-21 & 22.
With the petition having been withdrawn, the High Court refrained from delving deeper into the issue beyond the impugned orders. However, the exposure of fabricated or misrepresented legal precedents raises serious concerns regarding the integrity of pleadings presented before the Court.
Case Title: GREENOPOLIS WELFARE ASSOCIATION (GWA) v. NARENDER SINGH AND ORS
