Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This is a partition Suit.

9th March 2021 7-IAL2672-2021 IN SL2671-2021.DOC

2. As the frst order of business today, I have a fveepage representation or application by Defendant No. 3, apparently addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, but placed before me. It seeks that the matter be removed from my assignment; efectively, a recusal application. It is thoroughly misconceived. It amounts to forum shopping.

3. I am now told that the letter by the 3rd Defendant is not in fact even a recusal application but is a "confdential letter" to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. This is unspeakable. It is not open to parties to go behind the backs of judges to whom work is assigned in this fashion. I am retaining that letter on record and will ensure that a copy is given to the Advocates for the Plaintifs.

4. To recapitulate, I frst made an order on 29th January 2021 and then an order on 1st February 2021. Thereafter, twice in the last week, I have sat after Court hours to attempt an overall reconciliation of all disputes between Plaintif No. 3, the mother of the minor Plaintifs Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant No. 3 (the 3rd Plaintif's husband). Those were not 'hearings' in any sense of the term. They were an attempt, initiated by me, to try and fnd a complete resolution of all disputes. During these meetings -- for want of a better word -- I explained to these two parties the importance of resolving these disputes, at least in the interest of the two minors. This has taken a considerable amount of time.

7. I was informed yesterday and also on the previous occasion that the Defendant's principal Counsel, Mr Subhash Jha, his son and his associate Mr Ghanshyam Upadhyay are all unwell having been afected by Covid. I made it clear at all times that I would not proceed on merits in their absence; the matter is listed today only to ensure that the flings are complete and that no further delay is occasioned in the matter for that reason.

8. None of this is a ground for recusal, and indeed, even in the application that is before me I fnd no ground for recusal. There is 9th March 2021 7-IAL2672-2021 IN SL2671-2021.DOC no reason why the 3rd Defendant should purport to record what transpired when a Court is attempting a settlement of what is essentially a family dispute. Such applications for recusal have been made and rejected systematically right up to the Supreme Court. Such attempts have consistently been deprecated. They will continue to be deprecated. I refuse to accept the application for recusal. I can of course say nothing at all about the application directed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to have the matter removed from my assignment, where it is otherwise assigned in the routine course. The 3rd Defendant may choose to participate or not participate in future hearings. That is entirely up to him. I intend to give his Counsel the fullest latitude when they are available and in good health to appear either physically or online.

14. Without leave of the Court, no further Afdavits are to be fled.

15. The recusal application fled by the 3rd Defendant personally is taken on record and is to be kept with the other papers.

16. Given the severity of Mr Jha's condition and the fact that Mr Upadhyay is also similarly afected, I am presently listing the matter for directions on 25th March 2021.

17. A copy of the application fled by the 3rd Defendant is to be given to the Advocates for the Plaintifs.

18. As to the 3rd Defendant's soecalled application, I will let it pass this once, and I do so because Mr Jha and Mr Upadhyay with all the beneft of their collective vast experience are not available to appropriately advise the 3rd Defendant. I am, however, cautioning him that this kind of communication conceivably amounts to contempt of Court and possibly interference with the administration 9th March 2021 7-IAL2672-2021 IN SL2671-2021.DOC of justice. If the 3rd Defendant wishes to understand what precisely this means he is best advised to consult Mr Jha or Mr Upadhyay.