AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sushil Harkauli, Ag. C. J.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
On 22.9.2011 the following order was passed in this case:-
Annx. A/7 refers to a letter dated 14.4.1988, which contains the impression of the circular of the Government of India dated 15.12.1982, which was created in the mind of the author of the letter dated 14.4.1988. In our opinion, the matter should not be decided on the basis of that impression instead of examining the original circular dated 15.12.1982.
In the circumstances, as prayed, two weeks'' time is allowed for filing a copy of the said circular dated 15.12.1982.
As prayed, list on 15.10.2011.
Thereafter on 13.10.2011 the matter went before another Bench, where it was stated by one of the learned Counsel that the matter was part heard-heard with this Bench and accordingly that Bench directed the matter to be placed before this Bench.
Whenever a case is heard by a Bench or a Judge and if the Bench/ Judge feels that it/he devoted sufficient time in hearing and by marking the case as part-heard time would be saved at the next hearing, it is open to that Bench/Judge to mark the case as part-heard. If it is not marked part-heard by the Bench/Judge, then at the time when the case is being adjourned, normally counsel for the parties should request to mark that case as part-heard on the same ground it would help in saving the time of the Court at the next hearing, and it is for the Bench/Judge to consider the submission along with such other circumstances as may appear to be relevant, and to decide whether to mark that case as part heard or not.
But if the case has not been marked part-heard, it would not be proper for counsel to suggest to the other Bench/Judge (which would obviously not be aware or what transpired at the previous occasion before another Bench/ Judge) that the case be sent to another Bench/Judge by orally saying that the case was actually part-heard by the other Bench/Judge.
If we fail to observe this procedure, it may result in Bench-hunting on the part of litigants on wrong premise.
Accordingly, we decline to treat this matter to be part heard.
Office is directed to list this case before appropriate Bench as per roaster.