The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has advised advocates to refrain from filing frivolous petitions or accepting such briefs from their client since this wastes precious time of the court which could be utilised to decide other matters. The court also observed that an advocate is not merely a mouthpiece of his client since he is representing the latter before the court.
The bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi pulled up an advocate, representing a petitioner, for filing a petition which lacked merits, and dismissed it at the admission stage.
Advising the advocates, the court said, “In case a client insists on filing a petition or advancing a submission which is frivolous, the Advocate should advise him not to do so and… refrain from accepting such a frivolous brief.”
“Besides being a representative of his client, an Advocate is a responsible officer of the Court and he should assist the Court with his precise and concise submissions, wherever possible, with the assistance of relevant laws, including the Statutes, Rules and judicial precedents,” the court stated.
The bench further stated, “It is said the Bar and the Bench are the wheels of the same chariot. For fast and smooth running of the chariot, it is necessary that all the wheels move forward at the same pace and one set of wheels should not try to put brakes on the other set of wheels of the chariot.”
What the court said
The court was hearing a petition which challenged a notice dated November 11, 2025, issued by the Registrar, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.
The petitioner had filed a Securitisation Application (SA) before the DRT. The petitioner submitted that the Registrar has no power to order the appearance of opposite parties before him to show cause why an SA should not be allowed.
Story continues below this ad
The court observed that the petition was presented before the Registrar Listing of this Court on December 18 last year — after the SA had already been listed before the DRT’s Presiding Officer and the grievance of the petitioner, that the matter ought to have been listed before the Presiding Officer and not the Registrar, had already been redressed on December 1.
Referring to provisions of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993, the HC stated, “When power to issue notice to a defendant has specifically been conferred upon the Registrar of DRT, it cannot be said that the Registrar has no power to issue notice to a defendant to show-cause as to why the SA should not be allowed, and also to caution the defendant that in case he fails to file a reply, the SA will be heard and decided ex parte.”
The court then dismissed the petition.
In its order, the bench stated, “Before parting with the case, it is necessary to put it on record that there are 207 matters listed today in the list of fresh petitions, 128 matters are listed in the additional list, and 51 matters are listed in the daily IA list. The Court repetitively requested the learned Counsel for the petitioner to refrain from wasting the time of the Court and to raise his pleas before the DRT… but due to his insistence, the Court had to decide the petition by this detailed judgment, which has resulted in unwarranted wastage of precious time of the Court, which could have been utilised for deciding some other matter.”
The court further stated, “Normally, the Court would have imposed costs… but keeping in view that the learned Counsel for the petitioner is a young and inexperienced Counsel, who got enrolled with the Bar Council only in… 2024, the Court is taking a lenient view and is desisting from imposing costs on the petitioner. But the learned Counsel should understand that although he represents his client before the Court, he is not a mere mouthpiece of his client.”
Story continues below this ad
The bench of Justice Vidyarthi then quoted from a Supreme Court order, that the “exercise of power under this Article involves a duty on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority, and to see that they do the duty expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals.”
“Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice remains uncorrected.
“It is also well settled that the High Court, while acting under this Article, cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”
The bench of Justice Vidyarthi, in its order, stated, “As per Rule 12 of the Procedure Rules, the defendant has to file his reply to the application, along with documents, with the Registry of DRT and, therefore, the Registrar has rightly directed the defendant to appear in person or by a pleader/advocate to show-cause why the said SA should not be allowed.”
Story continues below this ad
“Therefore, I find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Registrar of DRT has no jurisdiction to issue notice to the opposite parties,” the order stated.
