A petitioner’s attempt to challenge the authenticity of a Vakalatnama filed six years after suit initiation and four years after filing a written statement was dismissed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court as an abuse of process. The Court held that such belated challenges, raised at the rebuttal stage, undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings and cannot be countenanced.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs-respondents against two defendants, including petitioner Gurnam Singh (defendant No. 2). Notice of the suit was issued for hearing on 10.03.2021. Summons were duly served upon defendant No. 1 through his nephew, Gurvinder Singh, and upon defendant No. 2 through his grandson, also named Gurvinder Singh, an adult member of his household.
Key Facts
- Summons were served on both defendants on 10.03.2021
- Sh. R.I.S. Majhail, Advocate, appeared on behalf of both defendants and filed a Vakalatnama bearing the thumb impression of defendant No. 2
- A joint written statement was filed on behalf of both defendants
- The case proceeded through framing of issues, examination of witnesses, and reached the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments
- Defendant No. 2 did not raise any objection to the Vakalatnama or the representation by Sh. R.I.S. Majhail for over four years
- No complaint or action was taken against the advocate during this period despite alleged non-consent
- The application to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert was filed only in March 2026, approximately six years after institution of the suit and four years after the Vakalatnama
Procedural History
- 10.03.2021: Summons issued and served on both defendants
- Date unknown (prior to 2022): Vakalatnama filed by Sh. R.I.S. Majhail on behalf of defendant No. 2
- Date unknown (prior to 2022): Joint written statement filed
- 2022 - 2025: Proceedings continued with evidence recording and arguments
- 25.03.2026: Application by defendant No. 2 dismissed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha
- 09.04.2026: Revision petition dismissed by Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner (Defendant No. 2): Contended that he never engaged Sh. R.I.S. Majhail as counsel and that his thumb impression on the Vakalatnama was forged. Sought permission to examine expert evidence to prove forgery and requested to contest the suit afresh.
Respondents (Plaintiffs): Argued that the petitioner had participated in the litigation for over four years without objection, accepted the benefits of representation, and was now attempting to delay proceedings at the final stage.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought permission to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert to compare the thumb impression on the Vakalatnama with his standard impression, and to be allowed to contest the suit afresh on the ground of non-consent to representation.
The Legal Issue
Can a party, who has actively participated in litigation for over four years through a counsel whose authority is now challenged, be permitted to raise a plea of forgery regarding the Vakalatnama at the advanced stage of the trial, merely to delay proceedings?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that the Vakalatnama was forged, as he never authorized Sh. R.I.S. Majhail to represent him. He argued that the thumb impression on the document was not his and that the service of summons through his grandson did not imply consent to legal representation. He relied on the principle that no one can be bound by a legal proceeding unless properly represented, and sought expert examination to establish forgery.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the petitioner had not only accepted representation for over four years but had also participated in all stages of the suit without objection. The fact that no complaint was lodged against the advocate during this period, despite having full knowledge of the proceedings, indicated acquiescence. They emphasized that allowing such a challenge at the rebuttal stage would encourage abuse of process and undermine the finality of litigation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the conduct of the petitioner over the course of the litigation and found that his actions demonstrated clear acquiescence to the representation by Sh. R.I.S. Majhail. The petitioner did not dispute the validity of service through his grandson, nor did he challenge the Vakalatnama until the case had reached its final evidentiary stage.
"No action has been taken by defendant No. 2 against the said counsel, who has been appearing on his behalf for the last four years on the strength of the allegedly forged thumb impression, even after filing of present application."
The Court emphasized that litigation is not a game of tactical retreat. Allowing a party to disown representation after years of participation, especially when no prior objection was raised, would open the floodgates to abuse. The Court noted that the petitioner had benefited from the counsel’s representation throughout the proceedings and could not now seek to nullify those proceedings on a belated allegation of forgery.
The Court further held that the trial court had correctly applied the principle of laches and equitable estoppel. A party who acquiesces in a course of conduct for an extended period cannot later be heard to complain about it, particularly when the delay prejudices the opposing party and disrupts judicial efficiency.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the order dated 25.03.2026 of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, which had rejected the petitioner’s application to examine a handwriting and fingerprint expert. The petitioner’s attempt to resile from the proceedings after four years of active participation was held to be an abuse of process. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Litigation Conduct Cannot Be Rewritten
- Practitioners must advise clients that prolonged participation in litigation through counsel, without objection, constitutes implied consent
- A belated challenge to a Vakalatnama after years of active litigation will be viewed as a dilatory tactic
- Courts will not permit parties to exploit procedural loopholes to restart cases at advanced stages
Acquiescence Bars Later Disavowal
- Silence or inaction over a significant period, especially when benefits are received, amounts to estoppel
- A party cannot selectively accept advantages of representation while rejecting its legal foundation
- Any challenge to representation must be raised at the earliest opportunity, preferably before filing of written statement
Procedural Finality Prevails Over Technical Claims
- Courts prioritize finality of proceedings over technical allegations of forgery when there is no timely assertion
- Expert evidence on handwriting or thumb impression will not be permitted if the delay is unexplained and prejudicial
- The burden shifts to the party alleging forgery to show not just the possibility of forgery, but also a reasonable explanation for the delay
