INDER MANI AND ORS. versus MATHEHWARI PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 400 · Decided: 10-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
INDER MANI AND ORS. 
v. 
MATHEHWARI PRASAD AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 10, 1996 
[A.M. AHMADI, 0. AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.] 
Judicial Discipline-High Court-Prerogative of Chief Justice to con-
stitute Benches of his High Court-Duty of Puisne Judges to comply with 
directions given in this regard-Disregarding of such direction-Deprecated. 
Respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court. The writ petition 
was listed before Mr. Justice A.P. Singh in Court No. 28. The order passed 
by him on 19.12.1995 stated that the case was passed over but as requested 
by the petitioner, it will be taken up on 21.12.1995. The writ petition was 
placed in that Court before the Single Judge on 21.12.1995 as an unlisted 
case. The Daily Cause List for 21.12.1995 did not list this writ petition 
before that Judge. The case was adjourned for 22.12.1995. 9n 22.12.1995 
the Chief Justice of that High Court in the morning reconstituted the 
Division Bench presided over by M1·. Justice V.N. Khare with Mr. Justice 
A.P. Singh. In the Daily Cause List the constitution of this Division Bench 
E was shown as originally constituted. On such reconstitution, Justice A.P. 
F 
Singh did not join the Division Bench. He sat singly in Court Room No. 
28. He allowed that writ petition ex parte though the petition was not listed 
in the Daily Cause List of that date. This appeal had been filed against the 
judgment of the Single Judge. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : It is the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court 
to constitute Benches of his High Court and to allocate work to such 
Benches. Judicial discipline requires that the puisne Judges of the High 
G Court comply with the directions given in this regard by their Chief 
Justice. In fact it is their duty to do so. Individual puisne Judges cannot 
pick and choose the matters they will hear or decide nor can they decide 
whether to sit singly or in a Division Bench. When the Chief Justice had 
constituted a Division Bench of Justice V.N. Khare and justice A.P. Singh, 
H it was incumbent upon Justice A.P. Singh to sit in a Division Bench with 
400 
INDERMANiv. MATHEHWARIPRASAD [MRS.SUJATA V.MANOHAR,J.] 401 
Justice V.N. Khare and dispose of the work assigned to this Division A 
Bench. It was most improper on part of Justice A.P. Singh to disregard 
the administrative directions given by the Chief Justice oflhe High Court 
' 
and to sit singly to take up matters that he thought he should take up. 
Even if he was originally shown as sitting singly on 22.12.1995, when the 
Bench was reconstituted and he was so informed, he was required to sit in B 
a Division Bench on that day and was bound to carry out this direction. If 
there was any difficulty, it was his duty to go to the Chief Justice and 
explain the situation so that the Chief Justice could then give appropriate 
directions in that connection. But he could not have, on his own, dis-
regarded the directions given by the Chief Justice and chosen to sit singly. c 
This behaviour which totally undermines judicial discipline and proper 
~ 
functioning of the High Court is deprecated. [403-E-H, 404-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12982 of 
1996. 
D 
From the Judgment of and Order dated 22.12.95 of the Allahabad 
High Court in C.M.W. No. 7013 of i980. 
R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants. 
D.K. Garg and M.C. Dhingra for the Respondents. 
E 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Leave granted. 
This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the learned F 
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.12.1995 in Civil Misc. 
Writ Petition No. 7013 of 1980. By the said judgment the learned Single 
Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent ex parte. 
On 22.12.1995, the learned advocate who appeared for the appellants had 
G 
made an application supported by affidavit dated 22.12.1995 asking for an 
adjournment for reasons stated in the affidavit. This application was not 
granted. The learned advocate thereafter did not appear in the case and 
the impugned judgment has been passed ex parte. In view of certain 
-
I 
averments made in the special leave petition relating to what transpired in 
the Court of the learned Single Judge on 19.12.1995, 21.12.1995 and H 
-p 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A 22.12.1995 we directed the registrar of the Allahabad High Court to place 
before us a status report in this behalf so that we could
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.