Direct answer
The Delhi High Court maintains an official Forms & Proformas repository for court-facing tasks. The current repository includes, among other items, an application for digital copies of pending e-Court cases, a memo-of-parties template for e-filing, an urgent-listing form, an application for certified copy, a form for interlocutory applications, a process-fee form, an application for adjournment, a memorandum of appearance, a caveat, an urgent application, an index, a list of documents, an uncertified-copy application, an inspection-of-file form, criminal opening sheets, a vakalatnama, a notice of motion and listing proformas. The correct form depends on the procedural task and case category, so use the Court's live repository rather than an old saved template.
Important
A court form is only one part of a compliant filing. The form does not replace the petition, appeal, application, affidavit, annexures, court fee, proof of service, certified copy or other material required by the governing rule and case category. Cross-check the Delhi High Court filing procedure and the Court's current common objections before submission.
What the official Forms & Proformas repository contains
The Delhi High Court's official repository is task-oriented rather than limited to one case family. It currently publishes forms for record access, filing support, appearance, urgent listing, process service and case-document organisation. The Court's own FAQ directs users asking whether prescribed forms and formats exist to this Forms section.
| Task | Current official form/proforma examples | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Start or support a filing | Memo of Parties template, Index, List of Documents, Listing Proforma | Helps structure filing metadata and accompanying papers in the format expected by the Registry |
| Interlocutory or urgent relief | Form for Interlocutory Applications, Urgent Application, Form for Urgent (Mentioning) Cases | Supports applications made within or alongside a pending matter |
| Representation and appearance | Vakalatnama, Memorandum of Appearance of Advocate | Records authority or appearance in the manner required for the particular filing |
| Record access | Application for Certified Copy, Application for Uncertified Copy, Inspection of File, digital-copy application | Separates inspection, certified-copy and other record-access tasks |
| Service and procedural administration | Process Fee Form, Caveat, Application for Adjournment, Notice of Motion | Addresses procedural steps beyond the main pleading itself |
Form-selection decision map
- Define the task first. Identify whether you are instituting a case, filing an application, entering appearance, seeking a copy, inspecting a file, paying process fee or requesting urgent listing.
- Identify the case category. Appeals, revisions, writs, criminal matters, original-side matters and applications can require different supporting proformas or opening sheets.
- Check the live Forms page. Search the official repository by title before using a locally saved document.
- Read the applicable filing rule. A form may not show every document, endorsement or condition required by the Court's rules.
- Check common objections. The Registry's common-objection material is a practical control for signatures, affidavits, certified copies, margins, translations, listing proformas and other recurring defects.
- Verify e-filing compatibility. For electronic filing, confirm whether a template must be uploaded in a particular format or whether information is entered through the filing portal itself.
Forms used with filing and e-filing
The official repository currently includes a Template for uploading Memo of Parties in e-filing facility. This is particularly important because the memo of parties is both a substantive court document and a source of structured case information. The Court's e-Filing page separately publishes the e-Filing Rules, FAQs, case categorisation and common objections. A user should therefore treat the template and the e-filing system as connected but distinct controls.
The repository also includes an Index, List of Documents and Listing Proforma. These are not interchangeable. The index organises the paper-book or electronic document set; the list of documents identifies material relied upon; and a listing proforma provides case-listing information required by the Court for the relevant workflow.
Applications, urgent listing and appearance forms
The Forms page currently publishes a Form for Interlocutory Applications, an Urgent Application, a Form for Urgent (Mentioning) Cases for Listing / Accommodation, an Application for Adjournment, a Vakalatnama, and a Memorandum of Appearance of Advocate. The title of a form does not by itself determine whether it is suitable for your case. The governing rule, case type and purpose of the request remain controlling.
Certified copy, digital copy and inspection forms
The Delhi High Court repository currently provides separate forms for Application for Certified Copy, Application for Uncertified Copy, Inspection of File, and an Application form for supply of digital copy of cases pending in Hon'ble e-Courts. This separation reflects four different user objectives. If authenticity is required for a procedural or evidentiary purpose, use the certified-copy route. If the objective is to examine the judicial record and identify material, use the file-inspection route where applicable.
Opening sheets and case-category forms
The repository currently lists an Opening Sheet for Criminal Revision and an Opening Sheet for Criminal Section 374 Criminal Procedure. Case-category forms are significant because the Registry's common-objection material repeatedly identifies missing or incomplete opening sheets and listing proformas as filing defects in relevant categories. The safest practice is to identify the exact case category first, then use the corresponding current form.
Process Fee Form is not the same as court fee
The Court publishes a separate Process Fee Form. Process fee generally relates to procedural service steps, while court fee can attach to the institution of a proceeding, application or document under the applicable court-fee framework. Do not treat a process-fee form as proof that all court-fee requirements have been satisfied. The dedicated Court Fees guide explains the broader distinction.
Use the common-objection list as a form-quality check
The Delhi High Court's current common-objection material shows why simply downloading a form is not enough. Depending on case category, the Registry may check matters such as caveat report, signatures, memo of parties, opening sheet, certified copies, affidavits, vakalatnama, translations, margins, annexure certification, listing proforma, court fee and limitation-related statements. Before filing, compare the completed package against the relevant objection list and the applicable rules.
Official sources to verify before using a form
- Delhi High Court Forms & Proformas
- Delhi High Court e-Filing page
- Delhi High Court List of Common Objections
- Delhi High Court FAQs
Research layer: building a form-ready Delhi High Court filing package
Start with the procedural event, not the document name
A common filing error is to begin by searching for a document title without first identifying the procedural event. The same case may require a main petition, an interlocutory application, a process-fee form, an appearance document, an urgent-listing request and a certified-copy application at different stages. A reliable workflow starts by asking what action the Court is being requested to take now. Once the action is clear, the correct official form or proforma becomes easier to identify.
Separate mandatory form, supporting proforma and pleading
Delhi High Court practice uses a mixture of substantive pleadings and supporting forms. A petition, appeal or application contains the legal case presented to the Court. A proforma may capture administrative or structured information required for scrutiny, registration or listing. A supporting form may deal with appearance, process service, record access or another operational task. Treating all of these as one category can lead to omissions because a completed pleading may still lack the required supporting proforma.
Use the Court's live repository as the version-control layer
Saved forms circulate widely among lawyers, litigants and office teams. Those copies are useful working drafts but they should not be assumed to be current. The Delhi High Court maintains a live Forms & Proformas repository, and the official FAQ points users to that section for prescribed formats. Before filing, compare the local document against the current official version, especially where the form captures filing metadata, listing information or a procedural declaration.
Match forms to the case category before finalising the paper-book
The Court's repository includes category-specific opening sheets, and the common-objection material shows that case-category requirements are checked during scrutiny. A criminal revision, criminal appeal, civil appeal or original-side proceeding can carry different supporting-document expectations. Therefore, do not finalise the index and paper-book until the case type and filing category have been confirmed through the current rules and e-filing classification.
Memo of parties deserves its own verification step
The Court publishes a template specifically for uploading the memo of parties in the e-filing facility. This document affects how parties are identified and can influence case metadata, service information and Registry scrutiny. Verify names, descriptions, addresses and party sequence against the pleading before upload. Inconsistent party information across the pleading, memo of parties and portal data can create avoidable filing friction.
Registry objections are a practical checklist for form completion
The common-objection repository provides an operational view of what the Registry frequently checks. For relevant case categories, recurring issues include incomplete opening sheets, missing listing proformas, defective affidavits, unsigned documents, absent certified copies, inadequate translations, incomplete memos of parties and filing defects involving court fee or limitation. Using this material before submission can reduce a predictable cycle of objection and re-filing.
Record-access forms should be chosen by the intended use of the record
The existence of separate certified-copy, uncertified-copy, inspection and digital-copy forms is significant. If you merely need to understand what is in the file, inspection may be the efficient first step. If you need an authenticated court document for an appeal, compliance step or another formal use, a certified copy may be appropriate. If you need a digital record of a pending e-Court case, the repository identifies a separate application route. The intended downstream use should therefore determine the record-access form.
Do not confuse urgent listing with substantive interim relief
An urgent-listing or mentioning form addresses when or how a matter should be placed before the Court. It does not itself establish entitlement to the substantive relief sought in the underlying application or petition. If urgent judicial relief is required, ensure that the substantive application, supporting affidavit, service position and relevant documents are complete in addition to any urgent-listing proforma.
Appearance documents need consistency with the filing
Where a vakalatnama or memorandum of appearance is required, verify that party names, advocate details and signatures align with the main filing. The common-objection material shows that defects in authority and signatures can become scrutiny issues. An appearance document should therefore be checked as part of the same quality-control pass as the memo of parties and main pleading.
Process fee belongs to a later service workflow
After institution, some matters require process to be issued for service. The separate Process Fee Form reflects that operational step. It should not be confused with the court fee payable on a plaint, petition, appeal or application. Keeping these charges conceptually separate makes it easier to diagnose whether an objection concerns institution, document fee, service process or another administrative requirement.
Build a final pre-filing form checklist
Before submission, confirm: the exact case category; the current version of each official form; memo-of-parties consistency; index and document-list accuracy; required opening sheet or listing proforma; signatures and affidavits; authority/appearance document; certified copies or translations where required; process-fee or court-fee requirements; and any urgent-listing material. Then compare the package with the Delhi High Court's current filing rules and common objections. This final control is more reliable than assuming that a downloaded form is self-explanatory.
Archive the exact form version used for the filing
For professional file management, preserve the exact official form or proforma used on the filing date together with the completed version submitted to the Court. This creates a clear audit trail if the Court later updates the template or if a scrutiny question arises about which version was followed. A simple record should note the form title, the official source URL, the date downloaded, the case category and the filing in which it was used. This is especially useful for recurring office workflows because it prevents an older template from silently becoming the default.
Re-check forms when a matter moves into a new procedural stage
A form that was correct at institution may not be the form needed later. A case can move from filing to scrutiny, service, interim applications, inspection, certified copies, urgent listing or appeal. Each transition can trigger a different form or proforma. Build a stage-based checklist for the matter rather than assuming that the original filing package remains sufficient throughout the proceeding. This also creates natural checkpoints for reviewing current rules, practice directions and Registry instructions before the next procedural action.
Disclaimer
This page is an independent court-navigation resource and is not the Delhi High Court, a court registry, a law firm or a substitute for the current Court Rules, notifications, practice directions or case-specific legal advice. Forms and filing requirements can change. Verify the latest official document and applicable rule before filing.