ORDER L.P.A. Nos.495 of 2012, 515 of 2012 and 438 of 2012 have been listed in the category of “Hearing” on 29.4.2013 in spite of the fact that in L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012, delay has not been condoned and these appeals have not been admitted. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012 submitted that all these matters have been listed since he sought permission for listing these matters by way of Bench slip, which was granted by this Court and, therefore, office may have inadvertently tagged all these matters and placed them under the category of “Hearing”. 3. Office is directed to take care in future that whenever any permission is obtained by the learned counsel in any matter for listing the same in the Court, then the matter should be listed as per permission granted in the Bench slip and if, there is no specific order for listing the case for a particular purpose, the office shall list the matter under appropriate category under which it is already fixed for like, if it is 'for admission', it should be listed 'for admission' and if it is 'for orders', it should be listed 'for orders' and if it is 'for hearing', then it is to be listed under the category of 'hearing'. 4. In view of repeated reminder to Bar of obtaining consent of all other advocates before mentioning any case orally or for bench slip permission, it is always presumed by the Court that whenever any permission for listing of the matter is submitted or matter is mentioned, the consent of all concerned advocates has been obtained. In a case where rival counsel refused to give consent for listing the matter, then such note may be appended in the Bench slip that other counsel has been informed for listing the matter but he did not give consent and in that situation, the office is directed to list the matter in the Court on the date given by the Court in Bench slip so that appropriate order may be passed in presence of both the parties to avoid/settle controversy of listing the matter in Court and to see that for listing the matter or preponing of the matter, there should not be any veto power of any of the contesting party. The contesting counsel may have right to seek adjustment in date so that he may be comfortable in arguing the matter but no party gets vested right against preponing the hearing of the matters by Court in a case, where case is made out for listing of matter prior to date given by the Office or even by the Court itself, which cannot be prevented. 5. Whenever permission is sought in number of cases and they are required to be taken together, then it is required to be mentioned by the learned counsel seeking permission so that appropriate order may be passed in the Bench slip. 6. In a case where the permission is sought for different cases for listing which are arising out of the same or common judgment or they are required to be heard together and when the matters are at different stage, then in that situation, normally separate Bench slip should be filed so that the office may list the matter under appropriate heading in the Court. In that situation, the learned counsel may clearly indicate, which case is to be listed 'for orders' or 'for admission' or 'for hearing' and when such cases are listed, then it is necessary to obtain Court's order for listing all the matters together (as tagged cases) so that they may be brought at same stage and thereafter, may be tagged. 7. In these cases, it appears that L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012 has already been admitted whereas L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012 have not been admitted, yet office under wrong impression and because of seeking permission and on the basis of Bench slip, listed all these matters together under the category of 'Hearing' in spite of the fact that in L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012, delay has not been condoned and are not the cases admitted for hearing. 8. Be that as it may, office is directed to be careful in future and may proceed to process the files according to the observations and directions given above. 9. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012, delay has not been condoned and are not the cases admitted for hearing. 8. Be that as it may, office is directed to be careful in future and may proceed to process the files according to the observations and directions given above. 9. A copy of this order be sent to Chairman, Jharkhand State Bar Council as well as respective Bar Associations of Jharkhand High Court so that they may inform the learned counsels and there may not be any unnecessary controversy among the learned counsel regarding obtaining permission for listing the matters and obtaining prior permission from the rival counsel for listing the matter and if consent is not given, note be appended and upon appending note, the office may list the matter in the Court for appropriate order and also if there is no urgency for deciding the appropriate date according to convenience of both the parties. 10. Now list L.P.A. No. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012 under the heading 'for orders' on 13.5.2013. When L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012 will mature for listing in hearing category, learned counsel may seek permission for listing these matters along with L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012.