Petition under o-41 r-25 of cpc

Balaji Bakthavathsal (Querist) 19 March 2025 This query is : Resolved
Dear learned Lawyers,
In a Civil Appeal suit, I am one of the respondent. The Appeal suit was filed in the year 2019 and it is being dragged by the Appellant counsel for more than 6 year by filing flimsy IA petitions one after the other. Recently on 1st Feb. 2025, a petition under the Order 41 Rule 25 was submitted by the Appellant counsel which got rejected by the District judge. Now the judge retired and new judge has taken over. Again the appellant counsel submitted a petition under the same Order 41 Rule 25 on 18th March 2025 which again got rejected by the new district judge. What course of action can be taken against such abuse of process of law ?
Thanks & Regards
Balaji

Read more at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/ask_query.asp

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Quick Summary

A respondent in a civil appeal is facing significant delays caused by the appellant's counsel repeatedly filing petitions under Order 41 Rule 25 of the CPC, which have been rejected by the District Judge on two occasions. The respondent is seeking advice on how to address this perceived abuse of legal process and expedite the appeal, which has been ongoing for over six years. The discussion highlights the potential for such tactics to cause undue hardship and delay justice.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 19 March 2025
As the appeal is pending for very long time and also since the appellant is trying one or the other dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings inordinately, you may file a memo before the court seeking to dispose the matter expeditiously.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 19 March 2025
Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) allows an appellate court to add issues and send them for trial. This rule applies when the court from which the appeal was filed didn't try or frame an issue that's essential to the case's decision.
You have not stated whether what is the reason that the appellate court rejected his application filed under the said provisions, because there is a danger of he once again approaching the high court with a revision petition agaisnt the dismissal of his said application.

Balaji Bakthavathsal (Querist) 20 March 2025
Dear Mr. Kalaiselvan,
The brief facts of the case given hereunder:
A fraudulent lady filed a suit seeking partition on our property on which she has no hold at all. After dragging the suit for 8 long years, the court dismissed the suit and imposed a penalty of Rs. 3000/- for filing false & fictitious suit under section 35-A of CPC. an appeal was filed in the District Court by the very same advocate who represented the plaintiff in the trial court. Knowing pretty well that he can't win the case, he is dragging the appeal suit since the year 2019 by filing false & frivolous IAs one after the other. Now after 6 years, he filed a petition under O-41, Rule-25 which was returned by the judge on 01.02.2025 which wass not accepted by the District Judge and returned the petition. Now again two days back, he again submitted a petition under the very same O-41, R-25 since new judge has taken over the District Court. This judge too returned back the petition and asked the advocate to present his arguments. This is the situation. Such advocates bring disrepute to our judicial system and to their fraternity.

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 20 March 2025
The case is posted to arguments, hence you may insist on arguments alone because the other dilatory tactics have been identified by the court hence not entertained. Therefore instead of playing blame games on the advocate, you may pursue the matter and proceed accordingly.
An advocate is not having any personal interest in the case until and unless he is the beneficiary, this advocate is acting on the instruction of his client

P. Venu (Expert) 21 March 2025
Your advocate should be requested to expedite hearing.

Balaji Bakthavathsal (Querist) 21 March 2025
Respected Kalaiselvan Sir,
I would like to remind the Advocates Act-1961 which clearly states that An Advocate cannot be the mouthpiece of his/her client. The litigant may be ignorant of law but the lawyer is not. He should keep up the decorum of the Honourable Court. Simply acting upon the litigant's whims and fancy is not the duty of the advocate. He should guide his litigant. Simply filing the petition under O-41, R-25 for the second time means how criminal minded should be the advocate ? நெற்றிக்கண்ணை திறந்தாலும் குற்றம் குற்றமே !

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Expert) 21 March 2025
you are speaking logic in this instead of understanding the practical situation.
The advocates generally suggest the clients properly in the initial stage only.
In the subsequent stages especially in the appeals the clients are more prudent and aware of plenty of loopholes than their own advocate, hence to mete out injustice continuously the client will instruct their advocates to follow all possible dilatory tactics to take shelter under that to deny justice to the decree holder..
you know that very well that too better than us because you are dealing with it that in the given practical situation lot of things takes place which cannot be discussed in the public forums like this.
Instead you can discuss with any advocate of your choice privately to get more ideas to confront such situations

Balaji Bakthavathsal (Querist) 22 March 2025
Also Mr. Kalaiselvan, you have mentioned that the might have acted upon the instruction of his client. So, if the client instructs to slap the judge on his face for returning the petition, would the advocate oblige ? Please Do not support or encourage such unprofessional acts.

Previous

Next

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Ask Query
Unanswered Queries