Jharkhand High Court Holds Review Petitions Filed by Changing Counsel to Disown Prior Settlement Are Abuse of Process

In a significant decision, the Jharkhand High Court has strongly deprecated the practice of state authorities filing review petitions by changing counsel in an attempt to disown or embarrass their previous legal representatives and prior settlements recorded before the Court. The Court, comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar, dismissed Civil Review No. 38 of 2026 with exemplary costs, holding that such conduct amounts to an abuse of the judicial process and is contrary to the healthy traditions of the legal profession.

The review petition was filed by the Managing Director, Jharkhand State Building Construction Corporation Ltd. and another, seeking to revisit an order dated 26.02.2026. The petitioners attempted to distance themselves from statements and settlements previously recorded in Court, this time by engaging different counsel. The Court noted that this tactic was aimed at avoiding compliance with the earlier order, particularly in light of a pending contempt petition.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar and Om Prakash v. Suresh Kumar, where the apex court had condemned the practice of changing advocates to file review petitions as a means to re-argue matters already settled or to disown statements made by previous counsel. The Supreme Court had characterized such conduct as an abuse of process and imposed exemplary costs.

In the present case, the original dispute involved claims for price variation, GST refund, and labour charges. Following the Court’s suggestion, the parties held a meeting and recorded minutes reflecting a settlement on the price variation issue, while expressly stating that no decision could be reached on the GST refund at that stage. The minutes were placed on record, and a supplementary affidavit was filed by Mr. Sunil Kumar, Executive Engineer, confirming the agreement. On the date of disposal, counsel for the review petitioners confirmed in Court that the agreed amounts would be paid by a specified date.

Despite this, the review petitioners later sought to challenge the order, contending that their previous counsel had acted without instructions and that the original petitioner had accepted rejection of the GST and labour charge claims. The High Court found these assertions to be dishonest and unsupported by the record. The Court emphasized that the minutes did not reflect any full and final settlement or waiver of other claims, and the order under review merely recorded the limited agreement reached.

The Court further observed that the conduct of the review petitioners, who are state authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution, was particularly egregious, as they attempted to make their own counsel a scapegoat and filed contradictory affidavits. The Court found no error in the original order and held that the review petition was a clear attempt to secure a fresh hearing by improper means.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the review petition with costs of Rs. 50,000, to be borne personally by the Managing Director and the Executive Engineer, and directed that the costs be paid to the Jharkhand High Court Advocates’ Clerk Association. The Court reiterated that such review petitions, filed by changing counsel to disown prior settlements and statements, cannot be encouraged and are contrary to the salutary practices of the Bar and the administration of justice.