Besides settling public disputes, the National Lok Adalat in Haryana also witnessed the resolution of a stand-off between the district judiciary and the local Bar Association of Faridabad on Saturday.
An affidavit was furnished by Advocate Ramesh Nagar, apologising for his act and conduct on April 29 before the court of Civil Judge Deepak Yadav.
The judge had described the conduct of advocates as “hooliganism”, and “willful disobedience, disruptive, scandalous and unruly behavior in the court room.”
What happened on April 29
On April 29, during a hearing of a civil suit, ‘Mange Ram vs Sant Ram’, a defendant’s advocate, Sunil Singh, appeared along with advocate Ramesh Nagar and questioned the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Deepak Yadav for adjourning the case.
As per the April 29 order of Judge Deepak Yadav, “Sh. Sunil Singh, Advocate and Sh. Ramesh Nagar, Advocate, did not get their desired outcome. So, they started shouting in the courtroom and making false, frivolous, and baseless allegations against the Court. They created a ruckus in the Court. Sh. Ramesh Nagar, Advocate, misbehaved with the undersigned and threatened to teach a lesson. It is necessary to mention here that Sh. Ramesh Nagar, Advocate, is neither counsel in the present case, nor is he a party to the suit, but still, he destroyed the decorum of the Court and created an unwarranted situation in the courtroom.”
The Judge added, “He pointed his fingers at the undersigned and threatened to teach a lesson for adjourning the case…He was about to hit the undersigned in a fit of anger.”
The Judge noted that Nagar started showing his hands towards him, stating that “tune is case mein jaan boojhkar date lagayi hai, main tujhe abhi batata hoon aur pardhan ko bulata hoon, tujhe abhi sabak sikhata hoon, teri kya aukaat hai (You deliberately fixed a date in this case. I’ll deal with you right now and call the head (President of District Bar Association) as well. I’ll teach you a lesson right now. Who do you think you are?”
Nagar called up District Bar Association President Rajesh Bainsla. Bainsla came along with Advocate Teeka Dagar, General Secretary, and 10-12 other advocates, in the courtroom, as per the April 29 order.
The judge told the advocates that the records of the trial court were called by the appellate court; therefore, this court could neither hear any arguments nor pass any order.
“However, Sh. Ramesh Nagar, Advocate, Sh. Rajesh Bainsla, Sh. Teeka Dagar and the other 10/12 Advocates were not inclined to listen or understand anything. Instead of considering the act and conduct of Sh. Ramesh Nagar and Sh. Sunil Singh, Sh. Rajesh Bainsla, President, District Bar Association, Faridabad, misbehaved and continued stating that the undersigned is not cooperating in this case and whatever is said by Sh. Ramesh Nagar is not wrong. It is a personal case of the Advocate and the Court cannot pass an order causing inconvenience to an Advocate,” observed the judge.
Coming back to Ramesh Nagar, the judge even said, “He came upon the dais putting his hands towards the undersigned, stating that ‘Tujhe to main dekh loonga aur teri to main complaint banaonga’ (I will see you and I will make a complaint against you). He forcibly came upon the dais with an intention to attack the undersigned, but the undersigned removed itself from his lines to avoid manhandling.”
Judge Deepak Yadav referred the matter to the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, to transfer the case, and added that a copy of the order be sent to the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana for legal action against the advocates.
However, after the affidavit of Advocate Ramesh Nagar apologising for his actions, Judge Deepak Yadav now observed in his May 9 order, “A bare perusal of the affidavit and oral submissions of Shri Ramesh Nagar, Advocate, would indicate that he has unconditionally apologised for his act and conduct on April 29, 2026…This Court always values and respects the Bar."
He added, “In view of the matter, the observations in order dated April 29, 2026, for initiating contempt proceedings, or for lodging FIR, or for requesting Bar Council of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana for initiating disciplinary action are hereby withdrawn and shall not be acted upon."
He noted that Advocate Sunil Singh regretted the incident, while Bainsla and Dagar had no personal interest in the case and dropped the observations against them.
