PALAKKAL MARTIN Vs. ANSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this Writ Appeal came before us on two occasions, it has become fairly clear to us that when parties resort to "bench hunting"/"forum shopping" in pending matters, the learned Judges who heard the matter on prior occasions may not know of the attempt made for "bench hunting''/"forum shopping". Therefore, we are of the view that directions are required to be issued to the Registry in order to curb the practice of "bench hunting"/"forum shopping", to the extent possible. This Writ Appeal was posted before a Division Bench on several dates. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Writ Appeal was argued before that Bench on 4-10-2013 and 8-10-2013. On 9-10-2013, I.A. No. 829 of 2013 was filed by a third party for impleading. On the ground that the counsel who appeared in I.A. No. 829 of 2013 is a counsel in the so called "avoid list" of one of the learned Judges constituting that Bench, the Registry did not send the Writ Appeal for hearing before the Division Bench who heard the matter on 4-10-2013 and 8-10-2013. In other words, the learned Judges of the Division Bench did not know whether any application for impleading was filed or whether a particular counsel appeared which would disable the Bench from hearing the case. On the other hand, the Registry itself avoided that Bench and sent the case before us. We are of the view that if any such method of "bench hunting"/"forum shopping" is adopted in a matter pending before a particular Bench, the learned Judge/Judges should know as to how he/they became disabled to hear that case. For that purpose, it is necessary to post that case before the learned Judge/Judges concerned before the Registry passes any order to post the case before another Bench.