Bench and Bar share responsibility for decorum: Telangana HC

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has struck down adverse remarks a trial court made against a lawyer, after the case record showed he had been present on most hearing dates.

Justice K Lakshman set aside the remarks contained in an August 17 docket order of a junior civil judge at Kushaiguda. “Bench and the Bar have a shared responsibility to uphold the dignity and decorum of the judicial process,” the judge said.

The High Court made it clear it was not going into the merits of the dispute. The docket order was set aside only to the extent of the remarks against the plaintiffs’ counsel.

What the trial court said

In the August 17 order, the trial judge recorded that over many adjournments, the plaintiffs’ counsel had asked for the case to be passed over and then not appeared when it was called again. The judge also said the lawyer filed memos and petitions during call work without serving notice on the other side. He directed the counsel to appear whenever the case was called, warning that further steps would follow otherwise.

K Mohan, counsel for the plaintiffs, told the High Court that the trial court’s own records showed both counsel present on most earlier dates. Nowhere was the plaintiffs’ lawyer recorded as absent, he said. He added that on September 7, the trial court adjourned the part-heard case to December 21 without taking up any proceedings, although the first plaintiff is a senior citizen.

On September 24, the High Court called for the original record of the suit. The docket sheets, the judge found, bore out the plaintiffs’ claim.

The dispute

The plaintiffs, D Venkatalakshmi and another, filed the suit in 2021 against Kuldeep Kaur and others. They sought a declaration of title, recovery of possession and an order declaring a sale deed null and void.

They allege that the sale deed, dated March 10, 2000, and said to have been executed by Venkatalakshmi’s husband in favour of the first defendant, is forged.

The suit came up for cross-examination of Venkatalakshmi on March 12 this year. That day, the plaintiffs sought leave to place on record a death certificate and a 1995 gift settlement deed. The husband had executed the gift deed in favour of their daughter and the plaintiffs say it carries his genuine signature.

On June 23, they applied under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act to send the sale deed to the Forensic Science Laboratory so the signatures could be compared. Both applications are pending and listed for December 21.

The record also showed that on July 15, 2025, the plaintiffs’ counsel told the trial court the elderly woman could not leave her house. The case was then posted to August 1, 2025, for marking documents.

Priority for senior citizens

The High Court noted that Venkatalakshmi is about 82 and a “super senior citizen.” It recalled that 1999 was observed as the International Year of Older Persons. Following the Centre’s National Policy for Older Persons, the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court issued a circular on November 2, 1999. It asked judicial officers to identify cases involving people above 65 and dispose of them on priority. 

Circulars issued in 2003, 2005, 2011 and 2014 repeated the instruction.

Citing these, the court waived notice to the respondents, using its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It directed the trial court to decide the two pending applications, and the suit itself, strictly in accordance with law and as early as possible. 

Get the latest updates in Hyderabad City News, Technology, Entertainment, Sports, Politics and Top Stories on WhatsApp & Telegram by subscribing to our channels. You can also download our app for Android and iOS.