KAMLESHBHAI MANILAL PATEL Vs. BHIKHABHAI DEVKARBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The cause list reflects name of High Court Legal Service Committee. Since the panel counsel of High Court Legal Service Committee Mr. M.D. Rahever is appearing for the complainants, there is no need or necessity to print the name of HCLS Committee in the cause list. Henceforth Registry shall ensure that the name of either High Court Legal Service Committee or Gujarat Legal Service Committee as and when he/she/they is/are representing on behalf of the respective parties by extending the legal aid, names of the institution are not required to be printed in the cause list. The Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure compliance of this order by issuing necessary circular in this regard.

(2.) In the application filed under the Contempt of Courts Act , 1971, it is quite often seen by this Court that there is no specific prayer made in the complaint alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by the competent court, for which the valuable and productive judicial time of the court is lost. In the present case, following prayer has been sought for by the complainant:

(3.) Above prayer does not disclose as to which order the contemnor is alleged to have willfully disobeyed. Henceforth, we direct that Registry should ensure that if such prayers are made to raise an objection in this regard.