Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1257 (MP)

State Of M. P. v. V. K. Shrivas

2011-11-04

K.K.TRIVEDI, S.HARKAULI

body2011
JUDGMENT ( 1. ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. On 22-9-2011, the following order was passed in this case :- "Annexure A-7 refers to a letter dated 14-4-1988, which contains the impression of the circular of the Government of India dated 15-12-1982, which was created in the mind of the author of the letter dated 14-4-1988. In our opinion, the mater should not be decided on the basis of that impression instead of examining the original circular dated 15-12-1982. In the circumstances, as prayed, two weeks' time is allowed for filing a copy of the said circular dated 15-12-1982. As prayed, list on 13-10-2011." ( 2. ) THEREAFTER on 13-10-2011 the matter went before another Bench, where it was stated by one of the learned Counsel that the matter was part-heard with this Bench and accordingly that Bench directed the matter to be placed before this Bench. Whenever a case is heard by a Bench or a Judge and if the Bench/ Judge feels that it/he devoted sufficient time in hearing and by marking the case as part-heart time would be saved at the next hearing, it is open to that Bench/Judge to mark the case as part-heard. If it is not marked part-heard by the Bench/Judge, then at the time when the case is being adjourned, normally Counsel for the parties should request to mark that case as part-heard on the same ground it would help in saving the time of the Court at the next hearing, and it is for the Bench/Judge to consider the submission along with such other circumstances as may appear to be relevant, and to decide whether to mark that case as part-heard or not. ( 3. ) BUT if the case has not been marked part-heard, it would not be proper for Counsel to suggest to the other Bench/Judge (which would obviously not be aware or what transpired at the previous occasion before another Bench/Judge) that the case be sent to another Bench/Judge by orally saying that the case was actually part-heard by the other Bench/Judge. ( 4. ) IF we fail to observe this procedure, it may result in Bench-hunting on the part of litigants on wrong premise. Accordingly, we decline to treat this matter to be part-heard. ( 5. ) OFFICE is directed to list this case before appropriate Bench as per roaster.