SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1982 Supreme(SC) 125

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY
Varinderpal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Mr. Justice M. R. Sharma – Respondent


ORDER

This is a writ petition in a matter where petition for special leave against the judgment of the High Court has lready been dismissed by this Court. The petitioner has now chosen to file this application under Article 32 of the Constitution. On the face of it the petition is not maintainable. There is not even a semblance of a question of law or an error of jurisdiction. There is not even a remote justification for filing this petition. It is a pity that the time of this Court which is becoming acuely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such petitions. Perhaps many such petitions may be avoided if learned counsel who are officers of the court and who arc expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. I appeal to members of the Ear to realise that the great burden of dispensing justice is a burden which it is their duty to share and it is their duty to see that the burden should not be needlessly made unbearable. The Judges of this Court are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the geatlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done. I appeal to the member

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top