Mohd. Aslam Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

This appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal, has been filed by the appellants aggrieved of the observations and directions made in the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in Writ-C No. 29141 of 2025 whereby learned Single Judge, on finding that one of the documents annexed with the writ petition was claimed to be forged based on instructions produced by the Chief Standing Counsel, has imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant-Advocates who have represented the petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

¶12

In view of the fact that directions have been given qua the appellants and they are aggrieved of the said directions, application for leave to appeal is allowed. The appellants are permitted to appeal qua the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge.

¶13

Appellant No.1, present in person, made submissions that learned Single Judge was not justified in imposing the costs. Submissions have been made that the document in question was made available by the parties which was annexed to the writ petition and based on instructions, the Court has come to the conclusion that the document was forged, however, neither the copy of the instructions was supplied to the appellants nor the appellants were afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order impugned and therefore, the order impugned, to the extent of imposing costs, deserves to be set aside.

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel contested the submissions made. It was

¶15

SPLAD No. 900 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

submitted that a bare look at the document would reveal that the same has absolutely no sanctity and therefore, the reliance placed on the said document in the writ petition, in the first instance, was misplaced and once it was found that even the said document was forged, the learned Single Judge was justified in imposing costs and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.

¶18

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶19

The petition was filed by the petitioners therein through the appellants inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. In the petition, it was claimed that the wife (petitioner no.2) had converted to Islam and thereafter they have entered into a wedlock and therefore, the respondents in the writ petition be directed not to interfere with their married life.

¶20

In the instructions produced by the Chief Standing Counsel before the learned Single Judge, it was indicated that the document pertaining to the conversion was stated by the Madarsa in question as forged.

¶21

The learned Single Judge, noticing the said aspect of the matter, on finding that the parties before the Court were major, observed that without conversion, the marriage, as claimed, was not legal and required the parties to undergo marriage under the Special Marriage Act, however, on account of the fact that the document pertaining to conversion was indicated in the instructions produced by the Chief Standing Counsel as forged, learned Single Judge imposed an exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/on the counsel for the petitioners (appellants) and required the same to be deposited in the Mediation and Conciliation Centre within a period of 15 days.

¶22

A perusal of the document in question clearly reveals that even if the same was not a forged document, the same only indicates an agreement. As to with whom, the agreement has been done and before whom the same has been executed has not, at all, been indicated in the said document and therefore, on face of it, the document was simply a waste paper and, in any case, was of no use for claiming the relief in the writ

¶23

SPLAD No. 900 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

petition.

¶26

Though, learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion regarding futility of relying on the document, which has been alleged as forged by the respondents in the writ petition, imposing the costs on the counsel representing the petitioners therein and leaving the said petitioners go scot-free for handing over/producing the said document to the counsel, apparently was not warranted.

¶27

The indication made regarding the counsel remaining vigilant in future, in the circumstances of the case, may be justified, however, imposing costs, in our opinion, as indicated hereinbefore was not warranted.

¶28

Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed . The order dated 23.09.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, to the extent as it imposes costs on the appellants, is set aside.

¶29

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶30

October 29, 2025

¶31

AHA/Jyotsana

¶32

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd. Aslam Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Aslam Khan and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases