Back
2013 Supreme(Jhk) 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Prakash Tatia, Jaya Roy, JJ.
Shantanu Kumar Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012
Decided on : 1st May, 2013.
For the Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Adv.
For the Respondents:Md. Shamim Akhtar, S.C.(Mines) Mr. V. Shivnath, Sr. Adv. Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.(for pvt. respondent)
Obtaining consent from rival counsel for listing matters and deciding appropriate dates for listing
Headnote:
Court Procedure - Listing of Matters - Directions for listing matters in the Court and obtaining consent from rival counsel - Office directed to be careful in future and process files according to the observations and directions given
Fact of the Case:
The matters were listed in the category of 'Hearing' despite delay not being condoned and the appeals not being admitted. The appellant in one matter sought permission for listing all matters together, leading to the incorrect listing.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the office to be careful in future and process files according to the given directions. It also emphasized the need for obtaining consent from rival counsel for listing matters and for deciding appropriate dates according to the convenience of both parties.
Issues: Incorrect listing of matters, obtaining consent from rival counsel, and deciding appropriate dates for listing
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of obtaining consent from rival counsel for listing matters and directed the office to be careful in future while processing files and listing matters according to the given directions.
Final Decision: The court directed the office to list the matters under the appropriate category and to be careful in processing files according to the given directions. It also scheduled the listing of specific matters under the heading 'for orders' on a specified date.
L.P.A. Nos.495 of 2012, 515 of 2012 and 438 of 2012 have been listed in the category of “Hearing” on 29.4.2013 in spite of the fact that in L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012, delay has not been condoned and these appeals have not been admitted.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012 submitted that all these matters have been listed since he sought permission for listing these matters by way of Bench slip, which was granted by this Court and, therefore, office may have inadvertently tagged all these matters and placed them under the category of “Hearing”.
3. Office is directed to take care in future that whenever any permission is obtained by the learned counsel in any matter for listing the same in the Court, then the matter should be listed as per permission granted in the Bench slip and if, there is no specific order for listing the case for a particular purpose, the office shall list the matter under appropriate category under which it is already fixed for like, if it is 'for admission', it should be listed 'for admission' and if it is 'for orders', it should be listed 'for orders' and if it is 'for hearing', then it is to be listed under the category of 'hearing'.
4. In view of repeated reminder to Bar of obtaining consent of all other advocates before mentioning any case orally or for bench slip permission, it is always presumed by the Court that whenever any permission for listing of the matter is submitted or matter is mentioned, the consent of all concerned advocates has been obtained. In a case where rival counsel refused to give consent for listing the matter, then such note may be appended in the Bench slip that other counsel has been informed for listing the matter but he did not give consent and in that situation, the office is directed to list the matter in the Court on the date given by the Court in Bench slip so that appropriate order may be passed in presence of both the parties to avoid/settle controversy of listing the matter in Court and to see that for listing the matter or preponing of the matter, there should not be any veto power of any of the contesting party. The contesting counsel may have right to seek adjustment in date so that he may be comfortable in arguing the matter but no party gets vested right against preponing the hearing of the matters by Court in a case, where case is made out for listing of matter prior to date given by the Office or even by the Court itself, which cannot be prevented.
5. Whenever permission is sought in number of cases and they are required to be taken together, then it is required to be mentioned by the learned counsel seeking permission so that appropriate order may be passed in the Bench slip.
6. In a case where the permission is sought for different cases for listing which are arising out of the same or common judgment or they are required to be heard together and when the matters are at different stage, then in that situation, normally separate Bench slip should be filed so that the office may list the matter under appropriate heading in the Court. In that situation, the learned counsel may clearly indicate, which case is to be listed 'for orders' or 'for admission' or 'for hearing' and when such cases are listed, then it is necessary to obtain Court's order for listing all the matters together (as tagged cases) so that they may be brought at same stage and thereafter, may be tagged.
7. In these cases, it appears that L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012 has already been admitted whereas L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012 have not been admitted, yet office under wrong impression and because of seeking permission and on the basis of Bench slip, listed all these matters together under the category of 'Hearing' in spite of the fact that in L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012, delay has not been condoned and are not the cases admitted for hearing.
8. Be that as it may, office is directed to be careful in future and may proceed to process
