Gujarat HC Slams Senior Lawyer’s ‘Disgraceful’ Conduct in Creating ‘Artificial Urgency’

Ahmedabad, India – The Gujarat High Court has delivered a scathing indictment of a senior advocate's professional conduct, labelling his actions "highly deplorable, disgraceful and as such, condemnable" for manufacturing an "artificial urgency" to secure a late-night hearing for an appeal. In an order that serves as a stark reminder of a lawyer's primary duty as an officer of the court, Justice Maulik J. Shelat imposed a cost of ₹1 Lakh on the appellants and issued a stern warning to their counsel, Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, for misusing the court's machinery.

The Court's strong observations came while dismissing an appeal from an order filed by residents of a housing society who were challenging the denial of an ad-interim injunction by a trial court. The advocate had created what the High Court termed a "hue and cry," claiming that the authorities were poised to demolish his clients' flats overnight following the trial court's adverse order.

The Midnight Appeal: A Manufactured Crisis

The series of events began late on the evening of September 22, 2025, when the trial court declined to grant an ad-interim injunction in a suit filed by the appellants. The suit sought a declaration of ownership over flats built by the Gujarat Housing Board.

According to the High Court's order, Advocate B.M. Mangukiya approached the court registry at "wee hours," with an urgent circulation note received around 12:20 AM on September 23, 2025. The note was predicated on the imminent and unsubstantiated threat of demolition scheduled for 6:00 AM that very morning.

This claim of extreme urgency set the High Court's administrative machinery into motion. The order notes the significant effort involved: "The registry of this Court has taken serious note of such urgency...and as per procedure and rules of this High Court, first secured the administrative order of the Honourable the Chief Justice, circulated and placed the matter before this Court, today itself i.e. 23.09.2025".

However, when the matter was heard the next morning, the Court observed that the advocate's dire predictions had not materialized. "Till the hearing of the matter concluded–at about 11:45 AM, no demolition work had been started by the respondents as alleged," Justice Shelat noted, puncturing the very basis of the urgent, late-night appeal.

A Lawyer's Duty as an Officer of the Court

The Court's criticism was not limited to the falsity of the demolition claim but extended to the fundamental breach of professional duty. Justice Shelat emphasized that lawyers, particularly senior members of the bar, have an overriding responsibility to assist the court truthfully.

"It should not be forgot by any lawyer that first of all, lawyer is an officer of court, owes his/her duty towards Court to provide his/her aid and assistance to the Court, which dispenses the justice to the litigant," the order stated. "Even such duty would be much more on shoulder of senior member of bar appearing before the Court."

The Court condemned the advocate's actions for setting a poor example for the legal community. By failing in his duty, a senior member "passes on a wrong signal to other members of bar, who may tempted to do an act, not graceful." The judge unequivocally stated, "at least, this Court, in no terms, approves such disgraceful act of learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya, a senior member of bar of this Court."

The court found that the advocate, "without ascertaining the 'ground reality' and without taking sense of pleaders appearing for State & Authority... unnecessary troubled everyone." The judge stopped short of initiating further action but put the advocate "on guard that in future" if such conduct is repeated, the court "will take very serious note...and will surely take cognizance."

Background of the Dispute: A Failed Challenge to Redevelopment

The underlying legal dispute involved a redevelopment scheme for flats constructed by the Gujarat Housing Board, with leases set to expire in 2086. The flat owners' association, having secured consent from over 75% of the occupiers as required by the Gujarat Housing Boards Act, had agreed to a redevelopment plan with the Board.

The appellants, who were part of the dissenting minority, had refused to vacate their premises. Consequently, the Board initiated eviction proceedings, issuing notices in February 2024. An eviction order was passed on May 18 after due process, which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority.

The appellants then approached the High Court with a writ petition, which they later withdrew. Following this, they filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of ownership and an ad-interim injunction. The trial court refused the injunction, observing that the plaintiffs had failed to produce any documents to substantiate their ownership claims, leading to the frantic and ultimately ill-fated appeal to the High Court.

Court's Findings on Merits: No Prima Facie Case

Beyond the issue of professional misconduct, the High Court also found the appeal to be entirely devoid of merit. After a prima facie review of the conveyance deed, allotment letter, and sale deed, the court concluded that the appellants were merely leaseholders, not owners.

The Court held that the eviction was not a result of a lease breach, but a consequence of a majority decision by their own co-leaseholders' association, which was binding on them. "It is remained undisputed that plaintiffs have never questioned/challenged such decision of their Association sent to the Board in the present suit or otherwise," the Court noted.

Since the appellants were bound by the majority's decision to redevelop and had refused to vacate, the Court found they could be treated as "unauthorized occupants," justifying the eviction process. Concluding that the appellants had no prima facie case and that their conduct was not bona fide, the High Court dismissed the appeal and imposed an exemplary cost of ₹1 Lakh for creating an "artificial urgency was created" to bypass the normal procedural queue.

This case, DHANVANTIBEN VIJAYBHAI PUROHIT & ORS. v/s GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT & ORS. , stands as a significant precedent on the standards of professional ethics expected at the bar and the judiciary's low tolerance for tactics that abuse the procedural safeguards designed for genuine emergencies.