MR. BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.

1. All these five suo motu References were heard analogously as the subject-matters of these References are almost similar.

2. The facts giving rise to these References may be summed up thus:-

CIVIL REFERENCE No. 1 OF 2009:

Upon a First Appeal being No.1241 of 1997* having been listed before a Division Bench (Coram: B.J. Shethna and M.C. Patel, JJ), on 4th April 2005, the Court was pleased to observe as follows:-

“There is a sick note of Mr Japi for the respondent. No note for fixing early date of hearing can be entertained. Learned advocate has to file proper Civil Application for fixing early date of hearing by making out Special case in it. Hence, no order on this note.

Before parting, we must state that proper course for fixing early date of hearing is to file proper civil application making out a special case in it. Henceforth, the Office shall not entertain any such note and insist for civil application for fixing early date of hearing.”

Therefore, the Registry placed the order before the then Chief Justice and the learned Chief Justice was pleased to give direction to issue Circular to the Judicial Branches directing not to entertain any such note for fixing early date of hearing and to insist on filing Civil Application for fixing the early date of hearing.

However, as the learned advocates of this Court were accustomed to the filing of the notes for fixing the early date of hearing and they were insisting on the circulation of the same before the Court for orders thereon, the Registry was faced with a difficult situation as to whether such notes for fixing early date of hearing should be entertained or the advocate should be asked to file a separate application for fixing early date of hearing.

Therefore, the matter was placed before the then Chief Justice. The learned Chief Justice passed an order to refer this matter before the Full Bench to resolve the issue and give appropriate directions and guidance in the matter for the future administration of justice in the High Court of Gujarat.

Hence this Reference.

CIVIL REFERENCE NO. 2 OF 2009:

Upon Special Civil Application No.9201 of 2005 being listed before the Division Bench (Coram: B.J. Shethna and M.C. Patel, JJ), on th March 2006, the learned Court was pleased to observe as follows :-

“1. In this matter, learned Senior Advocate Mr Y.N. Oza, appearing with Mr R.S. Sanjanwala for respondent Nos.9 and 10 tried to make a mention for adjourning this case. It is noticed by this Court that designated Senior Advocates are at times mentioning the matters either for circulation, or for adjournments, or for any other purposes, which is against rules and very basis of being designated Senior Advocates. It is also noticed that mentioning is being made that designated Senior Advocate is appearing in the matter and learned Judge taking up such matter ordering “Not Before Me” as he is not taking up the matters of such designated Senior Advocate, which causes great inconvenience and embarrassment to others. It is also noticed that some times, designated Senior Advocates are seeking adjournments on the ground of advocate on record not available and without their presence matters are argued without proper assistance. It is also noticed that designated Senior Advocates are appearing through either associates or firms of his own office, which is against the basic concept of Senor Advocates.

2. All these things are against well established practice prevailing in the Supreme Court, as ordered by Hon’ble Chief Justice of India.

3. Hence, the Registry is directed to bring it to the notice of all the designated Senior Advocates on record and the members of the Bar through their President, Mr Y.N. Oza, who himself is appearing in this matter for respondent Nos.9 and 10, along with Mr R.S. Sanjanwala, that:-

i. No designated Senior Advocate will henceforth be permitted to make a mention before any court either for circulation or for adjournments or for any