MAHENDRA AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 278 · Decided: 09-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHENDRA AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR. 
JANUARY 9, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Practice and procedure: 
Two petitions filed against the same order-Plea that Advocate 's 
C 
clerk filed second petition by mistake-High Court dismissed the petitions-
Held, filing of second application was on account of bona fide mistake-
Matter remitted back for fresh consideration. 
D 
The Single Judge of High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous 
applications on the ground that the appellants had filed two petitions in 
respect of the same impugned order and thus had concealed the fact 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the confusion arose 
because the latter petition i.e. CMA No. 4435of1998 was renumbered as 
CMA No. 950 of2001 while the earlier petition i.e. CMA No. 4279of1998 
E 
was re-numbered as CMA No. 953 of 2001 and that by mistake the 
advocate's clerk filed exact copy of the earlier petition which was numbered 
as CMA No. 4435 of 1998. The same was filed at a latter date. In this 
background it was submitted that there was no suppression and in fact 
there was no reason to mislead the Court. 
F 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court, the 
Court 
HELD: 1. The confusion arose because the petition filed later was 
renumbered as CMA No. 950 of 2001 while the petition filed earlier, in 
which the order of stay granted on 23.12.1998, was re-numbered as CMA 
No. 953 of 2001. [280-E-F] 
2. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it appears that the 
filing of the second application was on account of a bona fide 
mistake. [280-G) 
278 
....
MAHENDRAANDORS. v. STATE[PASAYAT,J.] 
279 
3. It has to be noted that several petitions of similar nature are being 
filed without disclosing that earlier a petition had been filed. It would be 
therefore appropriate for the High Courts to make provision in the relevant 
Rules that in every petition it shall be clearly stated as to whether any 
earlier petition had been filed and/or is pending in respect of the same 
cause of action. It shall also be indicated as to what was the result of the 
earlier petition. If this procedure is followed, the confusion of the kind 
which has surfaced in this case can be ruled out. (281-A-CJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 
2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 4.3.2006 of the High Court 
of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Crl. Misc. Application No. 9501200 I (Old No. 
4435/1998). 
Abhisth Kumar and K.N. Tripathy for the Appellants. 
A.S. Rawat, A.A.G. and J.K. Bhatia for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted. 
E 
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge of the Uttranchal High Court dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous 
Applications. The High Court took exception to the fact that two petitions 
were filed in respect of the same impugned order. According to the High 
F 
Court the appellants had concealed the fact that the second petition had 
been filed while the first petition was pending consideration. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Criminal Misc. Application No. 4279of1998 was filed by the appellants 
G 
before the Allahabad High Court. After bifurcation of the State the said case 
was transferred to the Uttaranchal High Court and was re-numbered as 
Criminal Misc. Application No.953 of2001. It appears that there was another 
\)etition filed which was numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435 
of 1998 and the same was re-numbered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 
H 
A 
B 
280 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] l S.C.R. 
950 of200 l. The High Court was of the view that Criminal Misc. Application 
No. 4435 of 1998 corresponding to Criminal Misc. Application No. 950 of 
2001 was filed earlier and when the appellants failed to get an order of stay 
they filed the second petition suppressing the fact that one earlier petition 
was pending. In the second petition the appellants got an order of stay. 
This according to the High Court was a depreciable practice. 
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the confusion arose 
because the latter petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4435of1998 
was renumbered as Criminal Misc. Application 950 of2001 while the earlier 
petition i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 4279of1998 was re-numbered as 
C 
Criminal Misc. Application No. 953 of 2001. It is poi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.