A Delhi court has ordered the attachment of movable property belonging to lawyer Mehmood Pracha over RS 6 lakh in litigation costs arising from his challenge to the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment.
Judge Medha Arya of the Patiala House Court passed the order on Aug. 14 in execution proceedings brought by the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDLSA), which is entitled to recover the amount.
The court said Pracha, the judgment debtor, had been given several opportunities to file objections but had not done so. It consequently directed that warrants for attachment of his movable assets be issued up to the decretal amount, subject to filing of the required process fee.
The bailiff was authorised to break open locks, if necessary, to carry out the attachment. The case is scheduled to come before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Patiala House on Aug. 27 and before Judge Arya on Oct. 1.
The proceedings stem from a civil suit filed by Pracha seeking a declaration that the Supreme Court’s November 2019 judgment in the Ayodhya dispute was “null and void”.
A trial court dismissed the suit in April 2025 and imposed ₹1 lakh in costs. Pracha appealed, but District Judge Dharmender Rana subsequently upheld the dismissal and imposed an additional ₹5 lakh, bringing the total to ₹6 lakh.
The district court described the litigation as frivolous and said the initial costs had not achieved their intended deterrent effect. The enhanced penalty, it said, was necessary to discourage what it characterised as frivolous litigation.
Pracha’s case relied on remarks attributed to former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud during a public address in Pune in 2024. According to Pracha’s plea, Chandrachud had referred to receiving a solution to the Ayodhya dispute from “Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman”, who was himself a plaintiff in the original proceedings.
Pracha argued that the circumstances warranted declaring the Supreme Court judgment void and reopening the dispute.
The district court rejected that argument, holding that seeking guidance from the Almighty could not, by itself, constitute fraud or an attempt to obtain an unfair legal advantage. It also held that Pracha had no cause of action because he was not a party to the original Ayodhya litigation.
The court further criticised his attempt to implead Chandrachud shortly after the former chief justice retired, saying the move indicated an “oblique intent”. It characterised the suit as an abuse of the legal process and warned that courts already facing heavy caseloads could not accommodate what it called “luxurious and frivolous litigation”.
At the same time, the court’s observations formed part of its assessment of the particular litigation and the costs imposed on Pracha; the present proceedings concern only enforcement of that monetary liability.
The Ayodhya dispute was decided unanimously by a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Nov. 9, 2019. The court awarded the disputed 2.77 acres for construction of a Ram temple and directed that an alternative five-acre site be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for a mosque.
The latest Patiala House order does not revisit that judgment. It deals with recovery of the Rs 6 lakh costs awarded against Pracha after his separate challenge was dismissed.
Support Independent Media
Click Here and Join the Membership of Millat Times to Support Independent Media.
Support Millat Times