The Delhi High Court on Friday found itself clarifying an unusual mix-up during proceedings in Kuldeep Singh Gujral (HUF) vs. Jasjeet Singh & Anr.. A seemingly small error in recording the presence of an advocate turned into a matter requiring formal rectification. Justice Saurabh Banerjee presided over the matter and issued directions aimed at setting the record straight.
Background
The case has its roots in contempt proceedings filed back in 2019. While the underlying dispute has its own complexity, the immediate issue before the bench was not about contempt itself but about accuracy in court records.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Dismiss Election Petition Against Thane MP Over Alleged False Affidavit
On 29 August 2025, an earlier order mistakenly noted the presence of one Mr. Manoj Khanna on behalf of the respondents. According to the petitioner 's counsel, this was factually incorrect, as Mr. Khanna was never in court that day.
Court's Observations
When the matter was raised, counsel for the petitioner insisted the court’s records needed to reflect reality, not a mistaken appearance. On the other side, advocate J.K. Bhola appeared along with respondent no. 2 in person. Interestingly, respondent no. 2 himself sought to take responsibility.
Read also:- Supreme Court Collegium Clears Appointment of Three Karnataka Judicial Officers as High Court Judges
Justice Banerjee recorded that respondent no. 2 apologized for the mix-up, describing it as an 'inadvertent error'. The judge appeared receptive but firm, noting that such errors, even if small, could create confusion in the case’s history.
The bench observed,
"The presence of a counsel who never appeared cannot remain on record, and the error must be corrected appropriately," one advocate present in court explained.
Read also:- Supreme Court Collegium Confirms Four Judges as Permanent in Karnataka, Tripura and Madras High Courts
Decision
After hearing both sides, the court granted respondent no. 2 a week's time to file the necessary affidavit or application for rectification. The matter has now been renotified for 22 September 2025.
The order was short, but the underlying message was clear: accuracy in judicial records is not a mere formality, it is the backbone of fairness. By directing formal correction, the High Court ensured that future references to this case would be based on fact, not oversight.
Case Title: Kuldeep Singh Gujral (HUF) vs. Jasjeet Singh & Anr.
Case No.: CONT.CAS(C) 995/2019
