Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the non-extension of service of a District and Sessions Judge beyond 58 years. The appellant, a judicial officer, challenged the decision of the Full Court of the High Court of Patna not to grant extension. A learned single Judge of the High Court disposed of the writ petition on 14.2.1996, permitting the appellant to make a representation to the Chief Justice for reconsideration. The High Court administration then filed a Letters Patent Appeal against that order. While the LPA was pending, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court challenging the order admitting the LPA, alleging procedural irregularities and lack of permission from the Chief Justice. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Registrar General and called for the files. During the pendency, the Division Bench of the High Court passed a final judgment on 7.8.1996 setting aside the single Judge's order and dismissing the writ petition. The Supreme Court, after hearing the matter on 12.8.1996, held that the SLP had become infructuous because the final order of the Division Bench was not challenged. On the merits of the allegations, the Court perused the files and found that the Chief Justice had directed the filing of the LPA as early as 1.3.1996, and the subsequent office note dated 4.4.1996 only sought directions for posting the appeal after a change in the constitution of the Benches. The inadvertent noting that the LPA was filed by the appellant did not affect the validity of the Chief Justice's directions. The Court also strongly disapproved of the appellant's counsel's refusal to disclose the source of an internal office note produced before the Court, declaring the attitude reprehensible. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appeals - Infructuous Special Leave Petition - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court held that the SLP challenging only the order of the Division Bench dated 5.4.1996 admitting LPA became infructuous because the Division Bench subsequently passed final judgment on 7.8.1996 dismissing the writ petition, and that final judgment was not challenged. Held that the SLP was infructuous and dismissed it (Paras 4-5).
B) High Court Administration - Letters Patent Appeal - Authority of Chief Justice and Procedural Regularity - Not mentioned - The appellant alleged that LPA was filed without permission of the Chief Justice and that an erroneous note misled the Chief Justice. After perusing the files, the Supreme Court found that the Chief Justice had directed filing of LPA on 1.3.1996 and later office note only sought posting directions; the inadvertent noting did not invalidate the proceedings. Held that filing and disposal were regular and allegations were unwarranted (Paras 6-10).
C) Legal Ethics - Disclosure of Source of Court Document - Duty of Litigant and Counsel - Not mentioned - The appellant produced an internal office note dated 4.4.1996 and counsel refused to disclose the source. The Supreme Court expressed strong displeasure and held that the attitude was reprehensible and could not be countenanced by a court of law (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Leave Petition against the order admitting the Letters Patent Appeal had become infructuous after the Division Bench passed final judgment dismissing the writ petition; whether the Letters Patent Appeal was filed without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court and whether the office note dated 4.4.1996 misled the Chief Justice; whether the appellant and his counsel were under a duty to disclose the source of the internal office note produced before the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as infructuous. It held that since the final order of the Division Bench dated 7.8.1996 was not challenged, the challenge to the admission order dated 5.4.1996 had become academic. On merits of allegations, after perusing files, the Court held that the LPA was filed only after obtaining directions of the Chief Justice and all subsequent proceedings were regular. The Court expressed strong displeasure at the appellant and counsel's refusal to disclose the source of the internal office note, calling the attitude reprehensible. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Special leave petition against admission of appeal becomes infructuous if final order of appeal is passed and not challenged
- Procedural irregularity in filing appeal based on inadvertent office noting does not invalidate prior valid directions of Chief Justice
- Litigant and counsel owe duty to disclose source of court document produced before court
Case Details
1996 LawText (SC) (08) 63
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11276 of 1996
K.S. Paripoornan, B.P. Jeevan Reddy
JT 1996 (7) 442, 1996 SCALE (6) 144
High Court of Patna & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal by special leave against an order of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court admitting a Letters Patent Appeal filed against a single Judge's direction in a service extension matter.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought setting aside of the High Court Division Bench order dated 5.4.1996 admitting LPA No. 298/96 and quashing of the alleged irregular filing of the LPA.
Filing Reason
Appellant alleged that the LPA was filed without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court and that an erroneous office note dated 4.4.1996 misled the Chief Justice into giving directions causing manifest injustice; he also alleged inimical disposition of Registry officers.
Previous Decisions
Learned single Judge of Patna High Court disposed of C.W.J.C. No. 7401/95 on 14.2.1996 permitting appellant to make representation to the Chief Justice; Division Bench admitted LPA on 5.4.1996 and stayed the single Judge's order; Division Bench final judgment dated 7.8.1996 set aside the single Judge order and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues
Whether the Special Leave Petition against the order admitting the Letters Patent Appeal had become infructuous after the Division Bench passed final judgment dismissing the writ petition.
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal was filed without the permission of the Chief Justice of the High Court and whether the office note dated 4.4.1996 misled the Chief Justice.
Whether the appellant and his counsel were under a duty to disclose the source of the internal office note produced before the Supreme Court.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant contended that the LPA was filed without the permission of the Chief Justice, based on misrepresentation in Registrar (Inspection) note dated 4.4.1996; officers of Registry were inimically disposed and caused manifest injustice.
Respondent/Registrar General contended that the SLP had become infructuous because the final judgment of Division Bench dated 7.8.1996 dismissed the writ petition and was not challenged.
Registrar General denied allegations and explained that Chief Justice had directed filing of LPA on 1.3.1996; the later office note only sought posting directions and the erroneous noting was inadvertent.
Appellant's counsel refused to disclose source of internal office note, claiming no duty to explain.
Ratio Decidendi
A special leave petition challenging only an interlocutory order of admission of an appeal becomes infructuous when the final judgment in that appeal is passed and not challenged. Allegations of lack of permission must be tested against records; an inadvertent office noting after a valid direction of the Chief Justice does not invalidate the filing of a Letters Patent Appeal. A litigant and counsel must disclose to the court the source of internal court documents produced by them; refusal is reprehensible.
Judgment Excerpts
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 is not challenged.
We have no hesitation to hold that the appeal was filed only after obtaining the directions of the learned Chief justice, that the noting made by Registrar (Inspection) dated 4.4.1996 had only sought for a direction regarding the subsequent posting of the appeal and the noting had nothing to do regarding the directions to be given for the posting of the case before any Bench.
We express our strong displeasure at the attitude of the appellant and his counsel in totally refusing to disclose to the Court the manner in which a document filed in Court was obtained.
Procedural History
Appellant was District and Sessions Judge, Patna from 22.9.1988; considered for extension beyond 58 years. Evaluation Committee met on 29.6.1995 and Full Court on 22.7.1995 decided no extension. Appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 7401/95; single Judge disposed on 14.2.1996 with direction to make representation to Chief Justice. Chief Justice administratively directed filing of LPA on 1.3.1996; LPA No. 298/96 filed. Chief Justice posted matter before Division Bench presided by Justice N. Pandey on 15.3.1996; on 27.3.1996 Division Bench stated maintainability to be considered at admission. From 1.4.1996 benches changed; Chief Justice on 4.4.1996 ordered posting before LPA bench presided by Justice S.N. Jha; on 5.4.1996 Division Bench admitted LPA and stayed single Judge order. Appellant filed SLP before Supreme Court on 1.5.1996 challenging admission order. Supreme Court issued notice to Registrar General on 9.7.1996 and called for files; matter heard on 12.8.1996. In meantime Division Bench passed final judgment on 7.8.1996 dismissing writ petition. Supreme Court judgment on 23.8.1996 dismissed SLP as infructuous, held proceedings regular, expressed displeasure at non-disclosure.
