The Telangana High Court has set aside adverse remarks recorded by a trial court at Kushaiguda against a plaintiff's counsel, holding that the trial court's own docket sheets did not substantiate the allegations regarding the lawyer's conduct. The single-judge bench of Justice K. Lakshman disposed of a civil revision petition filed by the plaintiffs challenging a docket order dated August 17, 2026, which contained the impugned observations.
The dispute originated from a 2021 suit (O.S. No. 912 of 2021) seeking a declaration of title and challenging a sale deed allegedly executed by the husband of the first petitioner in favour of the first respondent. The petitioners, including an 82-year-old woman, approached the High Court contending that the trial court's adverse comments on the conduct and appearance of their counsel were contrary to the official record.
The High Court called for and examined the original trial court records. The proceedings showed that the suit was listed for cross-examination of PW-1 on March 12, 2026. At this stage, the petitioners filed an interim application seeking leave to place on record a death certificate and a Gift Settlement Deed, alleging the sale deed was forged. Subsequently, on June 23, 2026, an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act was filed seeking to send the disputed sale deed to the Forensic Science Laboratory for signature comparison with the Gift Settlement Deed. Both applications remained pending and were posted for hearing on December 21, 2026.
On reviewing the docket sheets, the High Court found that both counsel had been present on most of the previous dates of hearing. This factual position directly supported the petitioners' contention that the trial court's adverse observations against their counsel lacked evidentiary basis in the court's own records. The Court also noted an entry from July 15, 2025, where the plaintiffs' counsel informed the court that PW-1, being an elderly woman, was unable to travel, leading to the matter being posted for marking of documents.
The Court further took cognisance of the fact that the first petitioner was an 82-year-old woman. It referred to the National Policy for Older Persons adopted by the Government of India and circulars issued by the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh High Court, including the circular dated November 2, 1999, directing judicial officers to identify and prioritise cases involving persons above 65 years of age. The High Court observed that the trial court had adjourned the matter to December 21, 2026, without conducting proceedings during call work on September 7, 2026, despite the suit being part-heard and involving a senior citizen.
Justice K. Lakshman clarified that the High Court was not examining the merits of the underlying title dispute. The revision petition was allowed only to the extent of setting aside the docket order dated August 17, 2026, insofar as it contained adverse remarks against the plaintiffs' counsel.
What principle did the Telangana High Court emphasise regarding the conduct of judicial proceedings?
The Telangana High Court emphasised that the Bench and the Bar share the responsibility to uphold the dignity and decorum of the judicial process, and adverse remarks against counsel must be supported by the court's own records.
Procedural History And Key Findings
Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
Original Suit | O.S. No. 912 of 2021 (Declaration of title, challenge to sale deed) |
Forum | Trial Court, Kushaiguda |
Impugned Order | Docket Order dated August 17, 2026 |
High Court Proceeding | Civil Revision Petition |
Presiding Judge | Justice K. Lakshman |
Key Finding | Docket sheets showed both counsels present on most dates; adverse remarks unsubstantiated |
Disposition | Docket order set aside only to extent of adverse remarks against plaintiffs' counsel |
The judgment serves as a reminder that judicial observations impugning the professional conduct of advocates must be anchored in the contemporaneous record of proceedings. By setting aside the remarks, the High Court reinforced the principle that the integrity of the judicial process is a collective obligation of the court and the legal practitioners appearing before it.