1996(6) Supreme 420
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and K.S.
Paripoornan, JJ.
R.C. Jain -Appellant
versus
High Court of Patna & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10905 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11276
of 1996)
Decided on 23-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant: P.K. Jain, Gautam Kapoor, Rajendra K. Jain and Irshad Ahmad, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar and Ms. Sunita Sharma, Advocates.
(ii) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE -Appeal-Appellant, a District and Session Judge-Attitude of appellant and his counsel in totally refusing to disclose to Court the manner in which a document filed in Court was obtained-Displeasure expressed-Attitude adopted is toally reprehensible and cannot be countenanced by a Court of law. (Para 11)
JUDGMENT
Paripoornan, J.-Special leave granted.
2. The appellant is a District and Sessions Judge, Patna with effect from 22.9.1988. Along with others, his name was also considered for extension of service beyond 58 years of age. The Evaluation Committee of the High Court of Patna held a meeting on 29.6.1995. Thereafter, the matter was considered by the Full Court (High Court of Patna) on 22.7.1995. The Full Court decided not to give extention to the appellant beyond the age of 58 years. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 7401/95 in the High Court. By judgment dated 14.2.1996, a learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the appellant may make a representation before the Hon ble Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to place his case before the Full Court for reconsideration. As per orders of the learned Chief Justice on the administrative side dated 1.3.1996, the Registrar General, High Court of Patna, filed Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No: 298/96 against the decision of the learned single Judge dated 14.2.1996. As per the orders of the Chief Justice dated 15.3.1996, the matter was posted before the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice N. Pandey. Objection seems to have been taken that the LPA was not maintainable. The Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice N. Pandey and Mr. Justice I. P. Singh passed an order dated 27.3.1996 stating that the mainta inability of the appeal shall be considered at the time of admission. From 1.4.1996 there was a change in the constitution of the Division Benches. "On 4.4.1996, the Chief Justice ordered that the matter may be placed before the Bench dealing with the LPA matters. At that time, Mr. Justice S.N. Jha was presiding over the Division Bench dealing with the LPA matters. On 5.4.1996, the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice S.N. Jha admitted the LPA and stayed the operation of the decision of the learned single Judge dated 14.2.1996. The hearing was fixed to take place on 3.7.1996. In the meanwhile, the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) before this Court on 1.5.1996, assailing the decision of the Division Bench dated 5.4.1996, admitting LPA No. 298/96 to file.
3. In the SLP filed in this Court, the appellant alleged that the LPA was filed without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Patna, that the then Registrar General and certain other officers of the Registry of the High Court were inimically disposed towards him, and it is based on the misrepresentation contained in the notes of Registrar (Inspection) dated 4.4.1996, an erroneous impression was given to the Chief Justice that the appellant filed the LPA against the decision of the learned single Judge, certain directions were given by the learned Chief Justice which has resulted in manifest injustice to him. In view of the above averments, a Bench of this Court, by order dated 9.7.1996 issued notice to the Registrar General, High Court of Patna, and directed that the entire papers may be placed before this Court for perusal at the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the matter came up before this Court on 12.8.1996.
4. We heard counsel. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it is common ground that the judgment passed by the learned single Judge dated 14.2.1996 in C.W.J.C. No. 7401/95 was set aside by a Division Bench and the writ petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed. The judgment of the Division Bench is dated 7th of August, 1996.
5. The Registrar General of the Patna High Court has filed a detailed counter-affidavit dated 9.8.1996 enclosing a copy of the judgment passed by the Division Bench dated 7.8.1996. In particular, it was urged that the SLP has become infructuous in view of the subsequent events. In our view, the submission is justified in law. All that was attacked in the SLP was the order of the Division Bench dated 5.4.1996 admitting the LPA. The final order passed by the Division Bench dated 7.8.1986 i
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.