The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed that litigants cannot exploit procedural mechanisms to retract long-standing litigation positions after years of active participation. A belated challenge to the validity of a vakalatnama, unsupported by credible evidence or prior legal action, constitutes an abuse of court process and will not be countenanced.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present revision petition was filed by Defendant No. 1 in Civil Suit No. 4196 of 2018, Awtar Singh Rehal vs. Jagdish Singh Rehal, pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/NRI Court, Jalandhar. The petitioner challenged an order dated 06.01.2026, which dismissed his application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking to discard all pleadings, written statements, replies, and the power of attorney (vakalatnama) filed by Ms. Monika, Advocate, on his behalf.
Key Facts
- The vakalatnama and written statement were filed on behalf of the petitioner on 23.07.2018.
- Ms. Monika, Advocate, represented the petitioner continuously from 2018 onwards, including participation in cross-examination of witnesses.
- The petitioner himself appeared as a witness before the trial court on 27.05.2024, during which he was fully aware of the proceedings and the role of the advocate.
- The petitioner filed the application under Section 151 CPC only on 03.10.2025, more than seven years after the initial filing of the vakalatnama and nearly 17 months after his own appearance as a witness.
- No application was filed for comparison of signatures by a handwriting expert.
- No criminal complaint or civil suit was initiated against Ms. Monika for alleged forgery or unauthorized representation.
- The suit had progressed to the stage of re-examination of evidence by the time the application was filed.
Procedural History
- 23.07.2018: Vakalatnama and written statement filed by Ms. Monika, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner.
- 27.05.2024: Petitioner appeared as a witness before the trial court, fully aware of the proceedings and representation.
- 03.10.2025: Petitioner filed application under Section 151 CPC seeking to discard all pleadings and vakalatnama on grounds of forgery and lack of authority.
- 06.01.2026: Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that the delay was inordinate, no evidence of forgery was adduced, and the conduct amounted to abuse of process.
- 13.03.2026: Revision petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the trial court’s order.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the trial court’s order dated 06.01.2026 and direction to discard all pleadings and the vakalatnama filed by Ms. Monika, Advocate, on grounds of forgery and lack of authorization.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a litigant, who has actively participated in proceedings for years through a counsel, can successfully invoke Section 151 CPC to discard pleadings and vakalatnama on grounds of forgery, when no prior steps were taken to substantiate the allegation and the challenge is raised only after the case has reached an advanced stage.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel contended that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the serious allegation of forgery in the vakalatnama and written statements. He argued that the court should have ordered an inquiry or directed forensic comparison of signatures before dismissing the application. He relied on the principle that courts must safeguard against unauthorized representation and fraudulent filings.
For the Respondent
The respondents submitted that the petition was a blatant attempt to delay the proceedings. They emphasized that the petitioner had been aware of the representation since 2018, had appeared as a witness in 2024, and had never raised any objection until 2025. No criminal or civil action had been initiated against the advocate, and no expert evidence was produced to support the forgery claim.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the conduct of the petitioner in light of the principles governing Section 151 CPC, which empowers courts to act in the interest of justice but cannot be used to circumvent procedural timelines or to renege on prior conduct.
"The belated challenge to the authority of counsel, without any supporting material, clearly indicates that the application was moved with an oblique motive."
The Court noted that the petitioner had not only permitted Ms. Monika to represent him for over seven years but had also personally appeared in court as a witness in May 2024, thereby demonstrating full awareness of the proceedings. The failure to raise any objection at any stage prior to October 2025, despite having ample opportunity, rendered the claim of forgery implausible.
The Court further emphasized that Section 151 CPC is not a tool for re-litigating factual disputes or for withdrawing admissions made through counsel. The absence of any application for signature comparison, or any criminal complaint, rendered the allegation bald and unsubstantiated.
The Court also reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, holding that the trial court’s order was based on a proper appreciation of the record and involved no jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity.
"Courts cannot permit litigants to resile from their own pleadings after several years of participation in the proceedings, particularly when such a plea is unsupported by any credible material."
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of the court, designed to derail proceedings at an advanced stage.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the trial court’s order dated 06.01.2026, holding that the petitioner’s belated challenge to the vakalatnama and pleadings, without any supporting evidence or prior legal action, constituted an abuse of process. The suit proceedings were permitted to continue as they stood.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delayed Challenges to Vakalatnama Will Be Dismissed
- Practitioners must advise clients that raising allegations of forgery or unauthorized representation after years of active participation will be viewed with extreme skepticism.
- Courts will not entertain such applications unless accompanied by credible evidence, such as forensic reports or prior criminal complaints.
Abuse of Process Doctrine Applies to Civil Litigation
- The doctrine of abuse of process is not confined to criminal matters; it applies equally in civil proceedings where litigants attempt to manipulate timelines.
- Any attempt to withdraw admissions or retract representation after substantial progress in litigation will be treated as an abuse of court process.
Procedural Due Diligence Is Non-Negotiable
- If a party suspects forgery in a vakalatnama or pleadings, they must act promptly: file for signature comparison, initiate criminal proceedings, or seek an inquiry under Section 151 CPC at the earliest opportunity.
- Silence and inaction for years will be construed as acquiescence, barring later challenges.
