NEELAM (NOW NEELAM PALIWAL) Vs. SANTOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, we are of the opinion that in an intra-court appeal, the appellant cannot annex the document which was not placed before the learned Single Judge. If at all, any additional document are to be placed, then it should be placed with an appropriate prayer, and annexed with an affidavit stating the reasons as to why such document could not be placed before the learned Single Judge.

(2.) We deprecate this practice of annexing documents to the intra-court appeals which were not placed before the learned Single Judge in the original writ petition. Henceforth, we further direct that in all Special Appeals or inter-court appeals, the Stamp Reporter shall compare the original records, and if it is found that additional documents are annexed to the intra-court appeal, which were not placed before the learned Single Judge, then appropriate objections shall be raised in the stamp report.

(3.) In this case, the entire case of the present appellant-respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge was that, she was granted seniority retrospectively from 8/11/2002, and to buttress her contention, she relies upon Annexure No.2 to the Special Appeal, which is the direction given by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand, Dehradun on 23/7/2014. But that document was never placed before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge basing on that document.