Judgment 1. On the matter being called Counsel Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey appearing for the appellant (Ram Shankar Singh @ Rama Shankar Singh) is not present. He was also the counseJ for the same appellant as petitioner in CWJC No. 12293 of 2001). 2. For the same cause more than one case has been filed jointly or separately by the husband and the wife (Smt. Nirmala Devi). Both the husband and the wife resist a loan which was taken from the Bihar State Financial Corporation. 3. Rather than the court making any comment on the matter, it will be best to reproduce the report of the Registrar General: "In pursuance of the order of the Hon ble Court dated 9.10.2002 in L.P.A No. 1087 of 2002, the Registrar General has been directed to examine and report whether between two sets of writ petitions and two sets of letters patent appeals, any of the litigants has joined causes earlier and duplicated the proceedings. The petitioner Ram Shankar Singh @ Rama Shankar Singh of L.P.A. No. 1087 of 2002 had joined causes earlier with Smt. Nirmala Devi in Writ Petition No. 12293 of 2001. Both Ram Shankar Singh and Smt. Nirmala Devi are petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition no. 12293 of 2001, but in the L.P.A No. 1087 of 2002, she has been made respondent. In a separate L.P.A. No. 1051 of 2002, Smt. Nirmala Devi is the petitioner and Sri Ram Shankar Singh is the respondent. The said L.P.A. arises out of Writ Application No. 5580 of 2002. The said L.P.A. was filed earlier than the instant one. The aforesaid L.P.A. was disposed of earlier on 27.9.2002 by the Bench presided over by Hon ble the Chief Justice and the present L.P.A. was subsequently filed on 8.10.2002. Both the writ applications, namely, CWJC No. 5580 of 2002 and CWJC. No. 12293 of 2001 were disposed of in a common order by the Bench presided over by Honble Mr. Justice P. K. Deb on 16.8.2002. The Hon ble Court presided over by the Hon ble the Chief Justice in L.P.A. No. 1051 of 2002 which was disposed of on 27.9.2002 vide order dated 27.9.2002 have been pleased to take note of the fact that recovery proceedings were initiated between the husband and wife in concert filed two writ petitions, namely, CWJC No. 12293 of 2001 and CWJC No. 5580 of 2002. It may be pointed out that after the dismissal of the aforesaid L.P.A. No. 1051 of 2002 the instant L.P.A. No. 1087 of 2002 has been filed by the petitioner Ram Shankar Singh his wife as respondent. Hence, it is clear that the aforesaid Ram Shankar Singh, petitioner joined the causes earlier as petitioner in CWJC No. 12293 of 2001 along with his wife Smt. Nirmala Devi is the petitioner and Ram Shankar Singh her husband (the petitioner in the present L.P.A. No. 1087 of 2002) is respondent. The matter substantially in issue in this case and the reliefs claimed in the two writ applications as well as the two letters patent appeals are the same. The present L.P.A. appears to be barred under the principle of res judicata eundated under Section 11 of the Code Civil Procedure and in derogation of the principle under Order II, Rule 2 C.P.C. which are applicable with reference to the writ applications. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner being one of the petitioners in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 12293 of 2001 collusively made himself as party-respondent in the L.P.A. No. 1051 of 2002 over the same relief which has since been disposed of by the Bench of Hon ble the Chief Justice, has joined the causes earlier and duplicated the proceedings." 4. The Registrar General reports that the jurisdiction of the High Court has been utilised inappropriately. The petitioners (husband and wife) had approached the High Court in a writ jurisdiction with unclean hands and the present case, known fully to the appellant is otherwise in derogation of the principle under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure if not barred under the principle of res judicata. 5. Earlier a letters patent appeal filed by the wife Smt. Nirmala Devi had been dismissed by an order dated 27 September, 2002. The present letters patent appeal is about the same cause of action by the husband. They were together in the writ petition. Whether the orders of the High Court may be avoided as they may be a nullity under Section 44 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is entirely (sic) matter. But such fraud, collusion or malpractise repeatedly continues to occur at the High Court, and is rendering such circumstances as a phenomenon. The Registrar General is to include this in the list. 6. But such fraud, collusion or malpractise repeatedly continues to occur at the High Court, and is rendering such circumstances as a phenomenon. The Registrar General is to include this in the list. 6. Regard being had to the overall circumstances, this letters patent appeal has to be dismissed as the Court has to protect itself from such collusive action. 7. After this order was dictated, counsel for the appellant-petitioner appeared to explain that, in fact, the appellant has two wives. This makes matters worse. Lastly, he submitted that he is a young lawyer at the Bar and was not conversant with the procedures and the law and that any state of affairs noticed by the court had not been arranged intentionally. The court would not know as this matter leaves much to be inquired. It only explains that if the petitioner- appellant had succeeded in his manoeuvres he would have made a mockery of the public justice system. 8. This letters patent appeal is dismissed.