A Delhi Court has issued warrants for attachment of the movable property of advocate Mehmood Pracha after he failed to satisfy a ₹6 lakh decretal amount arising from litigation over his plea seeking to have the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya judgment declared "null and void".

Judge Medha Arya of the Patiala House Court passed the order on August 14, 2026, in execution proceedings initiated by the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDLSA), to which the amount is payable.

The Court noted that Pracha, the judgment debtor in the execution proceedings, had not filed any objections despite being granted multiple opportunities.

"Let warrants of attachment of the movable property be issued against the JD to the tune of decreetal amount on filing of PF" the Court ordered.

The bailiff was also given liberty to break open the locks, if required, for execution of the attachment. The decree-holder was directed to approach the concerned Nazarat Branch In-charge in advance regarding the date of execution.

The matter has been listed before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, on August 27 and before Judge Arya on October 1, 2026.

₹6 Lakh Costs in Ayodhya Verdict Challenge

The execution proceedings stem from Pracha’s civil suit seeking a declaration that the Supreme Court’s November 2019 Constitution Bench judgment in the Ayodhya dispute was null and void.

The suit was dismissed by the trial court in April 2025, with costs of ₹1 lakh imposed on Pracha. He subsequently challenged the dismissal before District Judge Dharmender Rana of the Patiala House Court.

On October 18, the District Judge upheld the dismissal and imposed an additional ₹5 lakh cost, taking the total costs to ₹6 lakh.

The District Judge had observed that the cost imposed by the trial court had failed to achieve the intended deterrent effect and enhanced the amount to “effectively check the menace of frivolous and luxurious litigation.”

The Court had termed the litigation “absolutely frivolous” and found that Pracha had not properly studied the 2019 Ayodhya judgment.

Plea Based On Former CJI Chandrachud’s Remarks

Pracha’s suit was based on a public address allegedly delivered by former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud in Pune in 2024.

According to the case put forward by Pracha, the former CJI had stated that the Ayodhya judgment was based on a solution provided to him by “Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala Virajman,” who was also a plaintiff in the original proceedings.

On this basis, Pracha sought a declaration that the Supreme Court judgment was void and sought fresh adjudication of the dispute.

The District Court rejected the premise of the challenge, observing that seeking guidance from the Almighty could not be characterised as a fraudulent act undertaken to gain an unfair advantage.

"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 observed.

The Court also found that there was no cause of action for the suit, noting that Pracha was not a party to the original Ayodhya dispute.

It further took exception to Pracha’s attempt to implead former CJI Chandrachud soon after his retirement, observing that the move "speaks volumes against his oblique intent".

The District Judge had described the litigation as an "abuse of the process of law" and stressed that "already overburdened dockets cannot afford the menace of luxurious and frivolous litigation".

The Court also cautioned against a tendency to target public functionaries after they demit office, observing that courts and the Bar have a duty to "ensure a peaceful and pleasant evening to those who have devoted their lives to public service."

Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya Verdict

The Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench, on November 9, 2019, unanimously adjudicated the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute whereunder it directed that the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be handed over for the construction of a Ram temple and that an alternative five-acre plot be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for a mosque.

The present proceedings before the Patiala House Court, however, concern enforcement of the monetary liability arising from the dismissal of Pracha’s challenge.

The August 14 order records that, in the absence of objections despite repeated opportunities, the Court proceeded with attachment of his movable property up to the decretal amount.

Case Title: New Delhi District Legal Services Authority v Mehmood Pracha

Tags: