The District Judge-1 of New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, Sh. Dharmender Rana, has dismissed an appeal filed by Advocate Mehmood Pracha that sought to declare the 2019 Ayodhya verdict of the Supreme Court as “vitiated by fraud.” The court not only upheld the trial court’s dismissal but also enhanced the cost imposed on the appellant to ₹6 lakh, terming the litigation “luxurious, frivolous, and malicious in intent.”
Pracha had approached the lower court seeking a declaration that the Ayodhya judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on November 9, 2019 in M. Siddiq (D) through LRs vs Mahant Suresh Das and Others was invalid and obtained by “fraud.”
He based this claim on a speech made by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud (referred to as the “next friend” of respondent Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan) in which the former CJI had mentioned seeking divine guidance while adjudicating the matter.
The trial court dismissed the suit in April 2025, imposing a cost of ₹1 lakh on Pracha for filing a frivolous case. The advocate then filed an appeal before the District Judge.
Judge Rana, after a detailed 28-page judgment, found the appeal to be entirely baseless and observed that the appellant “misunderstood the distinction between the Supreme Being and the juristic personality litigating before the Court.”
The order stated, “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.”
Rejecting Pracha’s contention that the Ayodhya verdict stood vitiated by fraud, the court clarified that seeking divine guidance in prayer cannot constitute fraudulent interference in judicial functioning.
“Seeking guidance from the Almighty cannot be berated as a fraudulent act to gain an unfair advantage, either in law or in any religion,” the court held.
The court further held that the suit was barred by law on multiple grounds.
Firstly, the appellant had failed to implead necessary parties, including actual litigants in the Ayodhya case.
Secondly, the Judges Protection Act, 1985 bars civil or criminal proceedings against judges for acts done in discharge of judicial duties.
Thirdly, the suit violated Order I Rule 9 of the CPC regarding necessary parties.
It added that impleading the former CJI as a “next friend” of the deity was legally untenable and indicated “an oblique intent.”
The judge strongly criticized the filing of such cases by senior members of the bar, remarking that time and resources of the judiciary “cannot be squandered by unscrupulous litigants.”
“The menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation, which tends to impede the unsullied flow of justice, needs to be dealt with an iron hand,” the court observed.
Citing Supreme Court precedents, including Ram Rameshwari Devi vs Nirmala Devi and Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik vs Pradnya Prakash, the court emphasized that imposing exemplary costs was necessary to deter abuse of process.
While affirming the trial court’s cost of ₹1 lakh, Judge Rana enhanced the penalty by an additional ₹5 lakh, directing Pracha to deposit a total of ₹6 lakh with the Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) within 30 days.
“The cost imposed by the Ld. Trial Court has failed to achieve the intended deterrent effect,” the court stated, adding that a stronger financial consequence was required “to effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation.”
Quoting Justice Krishna Iyer, the judgment concluded, “The situation becomes distressful when the protector himself turns predator… It may be a valuable contribution to the cause of justice if counsel screen wholly fraudulent and frivolous litigation.”
The appeal was dismissed with costs of ₹6 lakh, to be recovered by the DLSA, New Delhi. The court also directed transmission of the order to the trial court for compliance.
Case Details
Case Title: Mehmood Pracha Versus Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajmaan
Case No.: RCA DJ No. 27/2025
Date: 18/10/2025
