Back
Pulls Up Advocates for Not Paying After Years
In a stern display of judicial impatience, the has taken a firm stand against advocates who obtain interim orders from the court but fail to pay the requisite , leaving cases to languish for years. Justice V Srishananda, presiding over a routine hearing, did not mince words when he flagged the chronic issue of non-compliance with procedural requirements. The judge warned that he would not hesitate to vacate interim orders in matters where the remains unpaid, sending a clear message that the court will not tolerate the misuse of its machinery.
The remarks came during a hearing where it emerged that advocates had secured favourable interim orders but had neglected to pay the —a mandatory charge that covers the cost of serving court documents on the opposing party. Without payment, the opposite party may not be properly notified, effectively stalling the proceedings and undermining the . Justice Srishananda’s outburst highlighted a deeper malaise: cases that obtain early interim protection often sink into procedural limbo, clogging the dockets and delaying final adjudication.
The Court’s Frustration Boils Over
“Don’t think otherwise. I am harsh, I am required to be harsh. We cannot tolerate this. Taking an and managing an internet copy, how is this?” the judge told the advocates present in court. The reference to “managing an internet copy” alluded to the practice of obtaining a of the for use elsewhere—perhaps to leverage the relief—while the underlying case remains dormant due to unpaid fees. This behaviour, the court indicated, amounts to an .
Justice Srishananda further warned that he would systematically vacate interim orders in all pending matters where the had not been deposited. “Take your sweet time. A matter will reflect only in ,” he quipped, sarcastically pointing out that cases listed for hearing in would, at the current rate of procedural neglect, only see progress a decade later. The comment underscored the judge’s exasperation with the lackadaisical attitude of counsel who prioritise immediate relief over the orderly progression of litigation.
Understanding the Requirement
The is a nominal sum prescribed under the , or the relevant rules of the High Court, and is meant to defray the cost of issuing summons and notices. Its payment is a pre-condition for the court to take further steps in a case, including serving the opposite party. When advocates secure an without paying the fee, they effectively obtain a unilateral advantage—often a or —without giving the other side an opportunity to be heard. This not only violates but also delays the final disposal of the suit or petition.
The High Court’s concern is not new. Across the country, trial courts and appellate courts have repeatedly lamented the tendency of litigants to ‘freeze’ proceedings by obtaining interim orders and then failing to prosecute the case. The ’s recent intervention is significant because it targets the root cause: the non-payment of , a simple administrative step that, if ignored, can derail the entire litigation timeline.
Legal Basis for Vacating Interim Orders
A court that grants an inherently retains the power to modify or vacate it if the party obtaining it fails to comply with conditions attached to the relief. While the order itself may not explicitly state that payment of is a condition, the law implies that is mandatory for the continuation of any relief. The can invoke its inherent powers under , or analogous provisions, to prevent abuse of its process.
Justice Srishananda’s warning thus rests on solid legal footing. If an was obtained without the necessary procedural steps being completed, the court can set it aside or on the application of the opposite party. This serves as a powerful deterrent against the practice of ‘’ or ‘ hunting’—where litigants rush to court for temporary relief but have no intention of pursuing the case to its logical end.
Implications for Legal Practice
The message from the is unmistakable: advocates must ensure that all procedural formalities are completed promptly after obtaining interim orders. Failure to do so will now carry a real risk of losing the very relief that was painstakingly obtained. For the legal fraternity, this means a renewed focus on —keeping track of deadlines, depositing fees, and serving notice on the opposite party without delay.
The judgment also has broader implications for the judiciary’s efforts to reduce pendency. By striking out cases where remains unpaid, the court can clear its docket of ‘dead’ matters that consume judicial time without any real progress. This aligns with the ’s repeated emphasis on effective and the need to discourage or .
Conclusion
Justice V Srishananda’s blunt remarks serve as a timely reminder that is not a mere formality but the bedrock of a fair and efficient justice system. Advocates who obtain interim orders must honour their corresponding duty to pay the and ensure that the opposing party is heard. The has made it clear that it will no longer countenance the misuse of its machinery. For litigants and lawyers alike, the takeaway is simple: obtain an order, pay the fee, and prosecute the case—or risk seeing that order vanish as quickly as it was granted.
