“I am of the considered opinion that in order to effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation, the cost amount needs to be suitably enhanced to fetch the desired results.” District judge Dharmender Rana said. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
A Delhi court last week dismissed a plea filed by advocate Mehmood Pracha seeking to declare the Ram Janmabhoomi Ayodhya judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in 2019, as null and void. The court also slapped a fine of ₹6 lakh on Mr. Pracha for filing a “false and frivolous” appeal.
District judge Dharmender Rana of the Patiala House Courts in an order issued on October 18 said that of late, a very negative trend is discernible in the society which is to target important public functionaries after they demit offices.
“Some unscrupulous litigants nurtures a misconceived notion that upon demitting office an ex-public functionary becomes vulnerable and prone to all kind of malicious and malefic assault,” the court said.
It added that the situation becomes distressful when the protector himself turns predator. In the case at hand, the appellant, despite being a fairly senior counsel, has opted to choose the wrong colour of jersey.
“Instead of participating in the solution, he has opted to augment the problem. The appellant herein has not only filed a false and frivolous suit but has even filed an absolutely luxurious and frivolous appeal,” the court observed.
Mr. Pracha’s plea before the District Court was to challenge a civil court order of April this year, which had rejected his suit by imposing a cost of ₹1 lakh for abuse of process.
Noting that it is evident that the cost imposed by the trial court has failed to achieve the intended goal of deterrent effect, the district court said, “Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that in order to effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation, the cost amount needs to be suitably enhanced to fetch the desired results.”
In his main suit, Mr. Pracha had stated that former Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud (one of the five judges on the Supreme Court Bench that decided the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi case), in a speech last year had admitted that the Ayodhya verdict was in terms of the solution provided to him by ‘Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman’, who was also a plaintiff in the case.
Mr. Pracha, thus, demanded the court to declare the 2019 Ayodhya judgment as null and void.
“Evidently, the Hon’ble Judge was praying to the Supreme Being to help him find out a way whereas the litigant before the Hon’ble Judge in the Ayodhya case was a juristic personality distinct from the Supreme Being. The appellant seems to have missed the subtle distinction between the ‘Supreme God’ and the ‘Juristic Personality’ litigating before the Court, probably on account of misunderstanding the law and religion. It appears that the appellant has not cared to go through the Ayodhya case judgment, otherwise such a confusion would not have arisen in his mind,” the court stated on Mr. Pracha’s appeal.
It added that seeking guidance from the almighty cannot be berated as a fraudulent act to gain an unfair advantage, either in law or in any religion.
Published – October 25, 2025 10:57 pm IST
