Jammu & Kashmir High Court
H.S. Rainal vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 6 April, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR1995J&K7, AIR 1995 JAMMU AND KASHMIR 7
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
JUDGMENT M.L. Kaul, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of an order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 11-2-1994, whereby Writ Petition No. 947 of 1991 title H.S. Rainal v. National Insurance Company has been transferred from Srinagar Wing to Jammu Wing of this Court, along with all connected CMPs. and contempt petitions arising therefrom.
2. A challenge has been made to the passing of such order on the ground that the impugned order being a judicial order has been passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice under the Administrative powers vested in him as Chief Justice of the High Court. The said order being a judicial order could not be passed in exercise of the administrative powers vested in him and his Lordships failed to appreciate and consider the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellant. The learned single Judge failed also to appreciate that power to transfer cases from one Wing to another wing had not been conferred under the J and K High Court Rules and that his Lordship also failed to appreciate that the respondents were bound to prefer an appeal before the Srinagar Wing, as the writ petition was pending in that Wing of the Court.
3. The facts of the case giving rise to filing of this L.P. A. in short compass, relate that the appellant preferred SWP No. 947 of 1991 in the Srinagar Wing of the High Court, while he was posted in Jammu, as Divisional Manager in National Insurance Company Ltd. Division II, Canal Road, Jammu. This writ petition was admitted to hearing by the learned single Judge at Srinagar and an application for transfer of the case as moved at Jammu Wing before the Lord Chief Justice. The transfer of the writ petition was sought on the ground that on account of the militant situation prevailing at Srinagar it was not possible for the respondents to contest the petition there. The plea taken with regard to the appellant was that so far as his convenience was concerned, the cause of action had accrued to him at Jammu and as he was posted at Jammu, therefore, it was all the more easy for him as well to contest the petition at Jammu. The Hon'ble Chief Justice in his wisdom after hearing the appellant and the respondents transferred the writ petition, along with its connected CMPs and contempt petitions, to Jammu Wing, holding that Rule 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules confers power upon the Chief Justice to constitute benches and the power so conferred under Rule 8 is wide enough to cover the power to transfer a case from one Wing to another.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties; also bestowed our thoughtful consideration over the record on the file.
5. Mr. M. S. Malik, representing the Appellant, has vaguely argued that the Chief Justice has no power under the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, to transfer a case from one Wing to another wing of the High Court, and this power being a judicial power could not be exercised by the Chief Justice in his administrative capacity.
6. This argument of learned counsel for the appellant was impelled by the counsel opposite, Mr. J.A. Kawoosa, who argued that the power of the Chief Justice is contained in Rule 8 of the J, and K. High Court Rules, which empowers the Chief Justice with ample powers to assign and allot work to the Benches, as he desires fit. In this regard it is material to make mention of Chapter III of the J. and K. High Courts Rules which provides a scheme for the fromation of the Cause List and the Misc. instructions for the conduction of work before the different Benches as assigned, allotted or regulated by the Chief Justice. Rule 8 deals with the constitution of Benches and says that:
"Justice shall sit alone or in such Benches as may be constituted from time to time by the Chief Justice, and do such work as may be allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions."
This Rule has conferred ample powers upon the Chief Justice to allow the other Judges of the High Court to sit alone or in such Benches as may be constituted from time to time by the Chief Justice and do such work as may be allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. It ipso facto shows that all along the different benches of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, which shall be constituted from time to time by the Chief Justice are not required to be allotted work by the Chief Justice under his written orders, but the same can be allotted to them under his directions as well by the Registry. In this behalf relevant portion of Rule 9 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules is quoted below:--
"Provided that in urgent cases the Chief Justice may direct the case to be put up for admission on the day on which it is presented. Ordinarily under Clause (ii) of Rule 9, all cases presented before the Deputy Registrar shall as far as practical be put up for admission on the next working day, but in cases the Chief Justice feels that a case is of urgent nature he can direct the said case to be put up for admission on the day it is presented."
This Rule gives recognition to the authority of the Chief Justice for constitution of the Benches, as contained in Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules, that it is the Chief Justice and Chief Justice alone who can allot work to the different Benches of the High Court, as per the requirement and it is he alone who can say that some case is urgent which could be up for admission before a Bench on the day of its presentation itself.
7. As per Rule 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975, the cases which shall ordinarily be set down for hearing in order of their dates of admission can be fixed otherwise before a Bench, under the orders of the Chief Justice.
8. So from the above High Court Rules, it transpires that the Chief Justice has the ample powers to constitute the Benches from time to time and such Benches have to do such work as may be allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.
9. Section 101 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir provides the place of sitting of the High Court, which for ready reference is quoted as under:--
"101. Place of Sitting of the Court. -- (1) The usual places of sitting of the High Court shall be Jammu and Shrinagar.
(2) The Chief Justice shall, with the approval of the Governor, determine the number of Judges who shall sit from time to time at Jammu and at Srinagar for such period as may be deemed necessary.
(3) Whenever it appears to the Chief Justice that it is desirable that the High Court should hold its sitting at a place other than Srinagar and Jammu, one or more Judges of the High Court as determined by him shall, with the previous approval of the Governor, sit at such place."
According to this Section the usual place of sitting of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, shall be Srinagar and Jammu and the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor has to determine the number of the Judges, who shall sit from time to time at Srinagar and Jammu, for such period as may be deemed necessary. Even the Chief Justice has the power, though with the previous approval of the Governor, to change the place of sitting of the High Court from Srinagar and Jammu to some other place, in case he desires so, and also has the power to determine the number of Judges to sit at such place, with the approval of the Governor.
10. It is thus clear that Rule 8 of the J. and K. High Court Rules 1975, and other connected rules, which have conferred power upon the Chief Justice for preparation of the Cause List and to allot the work to different benches, both at Srinagar and Jammu, owes its origin to Section 101 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and these rules are directly in consonance and within the authority contained in Section 101 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
11. Both from Section 101 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, read with Rules 8 to 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975, it is established that the Chief Justice is the final authority to determine the number of the Judges, who shall sit from time to time at Srinagar and Jammu, for such period as may be deemed necessary and it is the Chief Justice alone, who can allot and provide judicial work to such Benches, to be done by them, either directly or under his directions.
12. In the case on hand the learned single Judge has been correct to hold that Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules confers ample powers upon the Chief Justice to constitute Benches and provide work to be done by them either under his written orders by way of the Cause List or even under his directions by the Registry. Rule 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules confers wide powers upon the Chief Justice even to transfer a case from one Wing to another Wing of the High Court, for it is the Chief Justice alone, who, in his wisdom, can see as to what work can be allotted to a particular Bench by him, for disposal of the cases.
13. The learned single Judge has passed the order after he has heard the parties at length and has also determined the merits of the case and it is only for the convenience of the parties that the case has been transferred from Srinagar to Jammu Wing of the High Court. No illegality or impropriety is involved in the impugned order, which requires any interference from this Bench.
14. The appeal, therefore, fails and is rejected. Connected CMP No. 152 of 1994 is also dismissed.
S.S. Ahmed, C.J.
15. I agree with the order proposed by my brother Hon'ble Kaul, J. but I intend to give my own reasons.
16. Section 93 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir provides that there shall be a High Court for the State, consisting of a Chief Justice and two or more other Judges.
17. Section 95 provides for the appointment and tenure of office of the Judges. It provides that a Judge of the High Court shall be appointed by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of the High Court.
18. Section 100 provides for the appointment of Additional and Acting Judges.
19. Section 108 provides that the officers and servants of the High Court shall be appointed by the Chief Justice or by such other Judges or officer, as he may direct.
20. There are provisions parallel to the provisions in the State Constitution contained in the Constitution of India. These provisions indicate that there is a vital difference between the Chief Justice of the High Court and other Judges of the Court, except in the matter of Judicial functioning.
21. Section 102 of the State Constitution provides as under--
"Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the jurisdiction of and the law administered in the High Court and the respective powers of the Judges thereof in relation to the administration of justice in the Court including any power to make rules of Court and to regulate the sittings of the Court and of members thereof, sitting alone or in Division Courts, 'shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of this Constitution."
The section quoted above specifies the jurisdiction of the High Court and the respective powers of the Judges in relation to the Administration of justice in the Court, including power to make rules and to regulate sittings of the Courts and members thereof, sitting alone or in Division Courts. This section has saved the existing powers of the High Court in regard to the above matters by providing that these powers shall be the same as they were immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.
22. Section 102 preserves: --
(i) jurisdiction of the High Court,
(ii) law administered in the High Court
(iii) powers of Judges in relation to administration of justice,
(iv) power to make Rules of Court,
(v) Power to regulate the sittings of the Court and of Judges sitting alone or in Division Courts by providing specifically that they shall be the same as immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.
23. The High Court of Judicature (Jammu and Kashmir State) was established by Order No. 1 of 1928 issued by Maharaja Bahadur. Preamble and para 1 thereof is quoted below:--
"Whereas it is expendient to establish a High Court of Judicature for the Jammu and Kashmir State, His highness the Maharaja Bahadur is pleased to command as follows:
1) That with effect from the fifteenth day of Baisakh Smavat One thousand nine hundred and eighty five, the High Court of Judicature Jammu and Kashmir State shall be constituted and shall consist of a Chief Justice and two or more Judges, as His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur may from time to time, think fit to appoint. One of the Judges shall have revenue experience and shall be styled Judge High Court and Revenue Commissioner. The Chief Justice and every Judge of the High Court of Judicature shall hold office during His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur's pleasure".
24. Jurisdiction of the Judges was indicated in para 7 of the order, which is to the following effect:--
"7. Jurisdiction by Judges of the Court:
(a) Except as otherwise provided by any enactment for the time being in force and subject to any rules made under this order, with the sanction of His Highness the Maharaja Bahadur, the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature may be exercised by a Single Judge of the Court or by a bench of two or more Judges of the Court.
(b) Revenue appeals and revisions shall first be heard by the Revenue Commissioner sitting alone and appeals against his decisions shall lie to a bench consisting of two other Judges of the Court.
(c) Subject to the provisions of clause (b) above, the Chief Justice shall determine which Judges in each case shall sit alone and which Judges of the Court shall constitute a bench.
25. In 1939, Maharaja of Kashmir promulgated the Constitution Act, 1996. Section 48 of this Constitution provided that the High Court shall be the High Court established in the State in 1928, which shall consist of a Chief Justice and 2 or more other Judges as may be appointed by His Higness Raja Bahadur.
26. Section 57 indicated that the usual places of sittings of the High Court shall be Jammu and Kashmir (Srinagar) and His Highness may by order direct for what period the High Court shall sit at each such place. The Chief Justice was given the power to hold the sitting of the Court at a place other than the usual places of sittings with the previous sanction of Raja Bahadur.
27. Section 61 of the Constitution provided that the Chief Justice shall determine which Judges shall sit alone and which Judges of the Court will constitute a bench.
28. Section 67 gave power to the High Court to make rules for regulating the practice of the Court etc.
29. In 1943, Maharaja of Kashmir granted Letters Patent to the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent provided for the appeal against the Judgment of a single Judge to the Division Bench.
30. Under Clause 26 of the aforesaid Letters Patent, the High Court was also given power to make rules in respect of matters specified in Section 67 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act.
31. All the aforesaid position, power and privileges have been saved by Section 102 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as reproduced in the earlier part of the Judgment.
32. It will be seen from the above that from the very inception of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1928, it was provided that the jurisdiction of the High Court would be exercised by a single Judge or by a bench of two or more Judges of the Court and it was left to the Chief Justice to determine which Judge shall sit alone and which Judges of the Court shall constitute a bench. The same powers were preserved under Constitution Act, 1996, and the Chief Justice was left with the discretion to determine which Judges shall sit alone and which Judge would constitute a bench. The power to make rules for regulating the practice of the Court which was earlier available to the High Court was preserved under Section 67. The preservation of power is also evidenced by Letters Patent granted by Maharaja of Kashmir in 1943. All the above powers as pointed out earlier has been preserved by Section 102 of the present Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
33. The rule of preservation is also contained in Art. 225 of the Central Constitution, which preserves the powers of the High Court available under Section 223 of the Government of India Act 1935 which, in its turn, preserved the powers of the Judges and the power of the High Court to make rules available under Section 103 of the Government of India Act, 1915 which is quoted below:--
"Section 108: Exercise of Jurisdiction by Single Judges or Division Courts: --
(i) Each High Court, may by its own rules, provide as it thinks fit for exercise, by one or more Judges, or by Division Courts constituted by two or more Judges, of the High Court, of the original and appellate jurisdiction vested in the Court.
(ii) The Chief Justice of each High Court shall determine what Judge in each case is to sit alone and what Judges of the Court, whether with or without the Chief Justice, are to constitute the several Division Courts."
34. The scope of Section 108 of the Government of India, Act, 1915 came to be considered by the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Chidambaram v. James Chadwick & Brothers, AIR 1953 SC 357, in which it was laid down as under (at p. 360 of AIR):--
"The Section is an enabling enactment and confers power on the High Courts of making rules for the exercise of their jurisdiction by single Judges or by Division Courts. The power conferred by the Section is not circumscribed in any manner whatever and the nature of the power is such that it had to be conferred by the use of words of the widest amplitude ...... the power that was conferred on the High Court by Section 108 still subsists, and it has not been affected in any manner whatever either by the Government of India Act, 1935 or by the new Constitution. On the other hand it has been kept alive and reaffirmed with great vigour by these statutes. The High Court still enjoys the same unfettered power as they enjoyed under Section 108 of the Government of India Act, 1915 of making rules and providing whether an appeal has to be heard by one Judge or more Judges or by the Division Courts consisting of two or more Judges of the High Court."
35. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 102 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Section 67 of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1996, Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir State Civil Courts Act, and Clause 26 of the Letters Patent (Jammu and Kashmir) and all other powers enabling it in this behalf, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir with the previous approval of the Governor, made the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules 1975. These rules repeal the Rules of the Court relating to proceedings in the High Court of Judicature, the Supplementary Rules of the Court of 1975 and all other existing rules and orders dealing with the matters covered by these rules.
36. Rule 8 provides as under:--
"Constitution of Benches -- Judges shall sit alone or in such Benches as may be constituted from time to time by the Chief Justice and do such work as may be allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions".
37. The above rule indicates that Judges shall do such work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice. They shall sit alone or in Division Courts as may be constituted from time to time by the Chief Justice.
38. Jurisdiction of the single Judge and benches of the Court have been specified in Rule 14 with the following proviso:--
"Provided that; -
(a) the Chief Justice may direct that any case or class of cases which may be heard by a Judge sitting alone shall be heard by a Bench of two or more judges; and
(b) a Judge sitting alone may, if he thinks fit, refer a case or any question of law arising therein for decision to a larger Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice."
Rule is provides as under:--
"The Chief Justice may constitute a bench of two or more Judges to decide a case or any question of law formulated by a bench hearing the case, in the later event the decision of such bench on the question so formulated shall be returned to the bench hearing the case and that bench shall follow that decision on such question and dispose of the case after deciding the remaining questions, if any, arising therein:
Provided that whenever in any case a Division Bench differs from any other Division Bench of the Court on a point of law or usage having the force of law such case or point shall be referred for decision by a larger bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice."
Rule 19 provides as under : --
"Save as otherwise provided by these rules or other laws or by any general or special order of the Chief Justice, every other case shall be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench."
Rule 22 provides as under:--
"Except as otherwise directed by the bench concerned or by the Chief Justice, a case partly heard by a bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same bench for disposal. A case in which a bench has merely directed notice to be issued to the opposite party or passed an ex parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such bench."
39. A perusal of the above provisions of the Rules of Court would show that it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chief Justice to distribute work to the Judges of the Court and to indicate whether they will sit alone or in Division Bench or what case or cases would be heard and decided by them. The Chief Justice has also the exclusive privilege of making a reference to a larger bench for the hearing and decision of a case apart from the Judges hearing a case who can also refer the matter to a larger bench. The Chief Justice also retains jurisdiction over a case heard in part by a bench and he may direct that it would be listed before any other bench. In short, under the constitutional provisions as also under the rules of the Court, the Chief Justice has the exclusive jurisdiction to distribute and assign work to various Judges of the Court.
40. The powers of the Chief Justice as are available under the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules are the same as are available to Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court under the Rules made by that Court.
41. In State v. Devi Dayal, AIR 1959 All 421, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court considered the scope and powers of the Chief Justice under Rule 1 of Chapter V of the Rules of Court and laid down as under (at p. 423 of AIR):--
"........It is clear to me, on a careful consideration of the constitutional position, that it is only the Chief Justice who has the right and the power to decide which Judge is to sit alone and which cases such Judge can decide; further it is again for the Chief Justice to determine which Judges shall constitute Division Benches and what work those Benches shall do. Under the rules of this Court, the rule that I have quoted above, it is for the Chief Justice to allot work to Judges and Judges can do only such work as is allotted to them.
It is not, in my view, open to a Judge to make an order which could be called an appropriate order, unless and until the case in which he makes the order has been placed before him for orders either by the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions. Any order which a Bench or a single Judge may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them or him by the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions is an order which, in my opinion, if made, is without jurisdiction."
These observations are contained in the Judgment passed by B. Mukerji, J.
42. There is a separate but concurring judgment of H. P. Asthana, J. in which it is observed as under (AIR 1959 All 421 at p. 425):--
"Rule 1, Chapter V, of the Rules of this Court, provides that Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Courts as may be constituted from time to time and d o such work as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice of in accordance with his directions.
It will appear from a perusal of the above provisions that the High Court as a whole consisting of the Chief Justice and his companion Judges has got the jurisdiction to entertain any case either on the original side or on the appellate or on the revesional side for decision and that the other Judges can hear only those matters which have been allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. It, therefore, follows that the Judges do not have any general jurisdiction over all the cases which the High Court as a whole is competent to hear and that their jurisdiction is limited only to such casts as are allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions."
43. In Puran Chand v. Abdullah, AIR 1938 All 606 (607) it was held that under Section 108(2) of the Government of India Act, 1915 Chief Justice alone can arrange for the sittings of the Court and it is not within the competence of any Bench of the Court to give any direction to the Chief Justice in this regard."
44. A Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court of which I was also a member had an occasion to consider the scope of the powers of the Chief Justice in Writ Petition No. 2332 (MB) of 1993 titled Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice, decided on 7-10-1993 and it was observed as under:--
".....
It is clear that the Chief Justice enjoys a special status not only under Constitution but also under Rules of Court, 1952 made in exercise of powers conferred by Article 225 of the Constitution. The Chief Justice alone can determine jurisdiction of various Judges of the Court. He alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or to Judges sitting in Full Bench. He alone has the jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by a Judge sitting alone or which case will be heard by two or more Judges.
The conferment of this power exclusively on the Chief Justice is necessary so that various Courts comprising of the Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench etcetra, work in a co-ordinated manner and the jurisdiction of one Court is not over-lapped by other Court. If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the judicial functioning of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hakering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The nucleus for proper functioning of the Court is the 'self and 'judicial' discipline of Judges which is sought to be achieved by Rules of Court by placing in the hands of the Chief Justice full authority and power to distribute work to the Judges and to regulate their jurisdiction and sittings".
45. Reverting to the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, it will be seen that Section 101 of the Constitution provides as under:--
"Place of sitting of the Court:--
(1) The usual places of sitting of the High Court shall be Jammu and Srinagar.
(2) The Chief Justice shall, with the approval of the Governor, determine the number of Judges who shall sit from time to time at Jammu and at Srinagar for such period as may be deemed necessary.
(3) Whenever it appears to the Chief Justice that it is desirable that the High Court Should hold its sitting at a place other than Srinagar and Jammu, one or more Judges of the High Court as determined by him shall, with the previous approval of the Governor, sit at such place."
46. From the above, it would be seen that the Court has to sit at two places, namely, at Jammu and Srinagar. The Chief Justice can even direct that the Court would hold its sittings at a place other than Srinagar or Jammu subject, of course, with the previous approval of the Governor. The Chief Justice has also to determine the period for which a Judge would sit at Srinagar or Jammu.
47. Since the usual places of sitting of the High Court is at two places, namely, at Srinagar and Jammu, the Chief Justice has to assign and distribute work to the Judges at both the places. Since the High Court which holds its sittings simultaneously at two places, the Chief Justice alone can control the jurisdiction by assignment of cases to the Judges sitting either at Srinagar or at Jammu. There is no restriction on the powers of the Chief Justice in the matter of assignment of work to the Judges of the Court.
48. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no provision in the Constitution and the Rules of the Court for the "transfer" of cases from Sringar to Jammu or vice-versa and therefore, the order passed by Chief Justice transferring cases from Srinagar Wing to Jammu Wing is bad in law. The argument is devoid of merit.
49. The Constitutional position of the Chief Justice as also his duties and status under the Rules of Court have already been examined.
50. Under Chapter III as also under Chapter V and the Rules of he Court especially under Rule 8, the Chief Justice has the power to allot work to the Judges. The "allotment of work "includes work allotted to the Judges sitting at Srinagar and the Judges sitting at Jammu. Work available at Srinagar may be allotted to the Judges sitting at Jammu and vice-versa. It is true that the word "transfer" has not been used either in the Constitution or the Rules of the Court, the fact remains that the Chief Justice has been empowered to allot work to Judges and to specify the cases which would be heard by them. Thus, as pointed out earlier, "Allotment" would also include shifting of cases from Srinagar and allotting it to Judges at Jammu.
51. Usually, transfer of a case envisages transfer from one Court to another. Since the High Court is one indivisible court with two places of sitting, there cannot be a "transfer of case" in the strict sense of the word. Nevertheless, Chief Justice can suo motu or on the application of a litigant decide as to which case would be heard by which Judge and at what place of sitting.
52. Since the Chief Justice has the administrative power apart from his powers on the Judicial side, and since he has to run a big institution which is an ever growing institution, he had to be conferred with wide powers as had been done under Constitution as also under the Rules of Court. Wide amplitude has to be conceded to the Chief Justice or else, it would hamper the proper running of the institution which, in its turn, would adversely effect the course of justice and the interest of litigants for whose benefit the Courts have been created.
53. In view of what has been staled above, I agree with my brother Kaul, J. that this appeal petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, which is hereby dismissed.