AMARAVATI: In a firm decision aimed at curbing the rising tendency of litigants manipulating judicial procedures, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on an appellant who submitted an “untruthful” medical certificate. The litigant introduced the document to justify an inordinate delay of 1,037 days in filing an appeal against a civil money recovery decree. The court observed that the document lacked supporting medical evidence and was created solely to bypass the statutory timelines mandated by the law of limitation.
The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Balaji Medamalli. The bench was reviewing a condonation of delay petition linked to a civil dispute. The appellant sought to challenge a prior decree for money recovery but missed the standard statutory deadline by nearly three years. To justify this substantial lapse, the litigant produced a certificate from a registered medical practitioner asserting that she was incapacitated and had been strictly advised continuous bed rest for almost three years.
Expressing strong doubts over the long duration of the recommended bed rest, the High Court directed the concerned medical professional to file a detailed affidavit explaining the clinical diagnosis. The doctor submitted an affidavit claiming the appellant visited his facility with symptoms of persistent fever, loss of appetite, and chronic back pain, leading to a diagnosis of spinal tuberculosis. The practitioner maintained that anti-tuberculosis treatment was initiated and the patient was advised to undergo continuous rest.
Upon a thorough examination of the case record, the High Court identified significant gaps in the claims. The bench noted that despite the doctor’s detailed affidavit, the appellant failed to produce basic verifying documentation. No secondary diagnostic prescriptions, laboratory investigation reports, or continuous outpatient registers were attached to the appeal or the medical affidavit. The bench expressed surprise at how the doctor remembered exact treatment timelines and specific drug regimens for a multi-year period while simultaneously admitting that he did not maintain official clinical records for the patient.
The Division Bench declared the three-year bed rest certificate “untruthful” and calculated specifically to circumvent the Law of Limitation. The court emphasized that the fabrication and submission of false evidence to secure judicial relief amounts to a direct obstruction of justice and compromises the integrity of the legal system. Rather than condoning the 1,037-day delay, the court dismissed the application and directed the litigant to pay a cost of ₹25,000.
Legal analysts note that this judgment sends a strong warning against using vague or unverified health issues to revive expired civil disputes. The ruling underlines that medical certificates used to justify major procedural delays must be backed by verifiable clinical data, diagnostic histories, and laboratory records to be accepted in a court of law.
