HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
A.K.SIKRI,ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
1. This appeal is filed by Mr. Vineet Khosla, however Mr. Deepak Khosla appeared on his behalf who is a non-advocate and moved CM No.22393/2010 for permission to argue the matter which was opposed by the other side. Thus, arguments were heard primarily on the application under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and judgment reserved.
2. We may note at this stage that there are many proceedings between the two groups, namely, Khosla Group on the one hand and Bakshi Group on the other hand which are pending in this Court. In most of the proceedings relating to Khosla Group, Mr. Deepak Khosla has been appearing and is seeking to argue the matters whether he is himself party to those proceedings or not. In some of the cases where he is not a party, he has moved applications under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961 seeking permission to argue the case.
3. Before the judgment could be pronounced, some events took place in one of the matters between the two groups. Learned Single Judge in Cont. Case (C) No.165/2008 passed orders dated 4th January, 2012, inter alia, giving two directions, namely, (i) Mr. Deepak Khosla would not appear in any Court either in person or as an attorney of a third party as he does not have inherent right to appear and argue; and (ii) Mr. Deepak Khosla should be medically examined whether he was suffering from any mental disorder. Mr. Deepak Khosla filed Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No.16/2012 against that order which was heard by a Division Bench of this Court. Since one of the issues involved had direct bearing on the present case, it was deemed fit to await the outcome of the said LPA. This LPA is decided by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 24th April, 2012. By detailed judgment of 72 pages, some of the fundamental issues have been discussed and deliberated upon. Though the two directions given by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4th January, 2012 are set aside on technical grounds, the Division Bench has given its opinion that the High Court has inherent power to issue appropriate directions including prohibiting the litigants from appearing and arguing matters in person and from initiating and filing proceedings, except with permission of the Court. Order dated 4th January, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge is treated as show cause notice with direction that the learned Single Judge would examine the issues afresh including as to whether Mr. Deepak Khosla should be allowed to appear in person and argue the mater in which he is the party or argue for others. It is also directed that while doing so, the learned Single Judge would examine other allegations which were made by the Bakshi Group and noted in the judgment by the Division Bench after issuing a supplementary show cause notice, if deemed appropriate and necessary. When these issues are to be decided afresh, direction is given that Mr.Deepak Khosla would not be orally heard or given audience. Instead, he can appoint an advocate to appear for him and make oral submissions. Directions in this behalf are reproduced hereunder:
“73. In view of the aforesaid, we hold as under and issue the following directions:-
(i) The High Court has inherent power distinct and separate from power of contempt to injunct/sanction vexatious or frivolous litigation, vexatious/habitual litigants, contumelious litigant and issue appropriate directions, including prohibiting the said litigant from appearing and arguing matters in person and for others and from initiating or filing proceedings, except with permission of the Court.
(ii) The two directions given in the impugned order dated 4th January, 2012 are set aside.
(iii) Order dated 4th January, 2012 will be treated as a show cause notice. The learned single Judge will examine other allegations, which have been made by the respondents and issue a supplementary show cause notice, if deemed appropriate and necessary.
(iv) The appellant will be entitled to respond and file reply to the show cause notice. He will not be orally heard or given audience. He can, however, appoint an advocate to appear for him and make oral submissions.
(v) Till the decision, there will be stay of the pending proceedings or initiation of new proceedings before the High Court and in the District Courts. This direction will not apply and prevent Deepak Khosla from filing writ petitions under Article 226 and moving any application for bail/anticipatory bail, if required and necessary. Deepak Khosla, however, will not be permitted and allowed to appear for any third party till the decision. This will not apply to any proceedings before the Supreme Court or in any courts outside Delhi. In case immediate orders are required, the parties (including the respondents) can approach the learned single Judge for appropriate directions or permission to continue with the pending proceedings or initiate new proceedings.
(vi) An order disposing of the show cause notice will be passed expeditiously as soon as possible. In such matters, it is apparently desirable that the proceeding should be concluded as soon as possible as it causes prejudice to the parties in litigation.”
4. Since the fundamental issue as to whether Mr. Deepak Khosla is to be allowed to appear in person and argue the matter or not is to be examined by the learned Single Judge and in the meantime, as per the orders of the Division Bench he is not to be permitted or allowed to appear for any third party, CM 22393/2010 preferred by Mr. Deepak Khosla seeking permission to appear and argue the case cannot be allowed at this stage. We, accordingly, dismiss this application with liberty to move fresh application if need arises, depending upon the orders that may be passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid proceedings.
5. Further, since permission is not granted at this stage and in view of the aforesaid directions of the Division Bench that LPA cannot be argued by Mr. Deepak Khosla, we adjourn the appeal to 7.9.2012 to enable the Appellant to engage a counsel to argue the matter.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 13, 2012 pk (SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE