RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. NARENDRA MITTAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Before going to the matter of merits of the case in view of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is constrained to put on record that Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. He had supplied seven compilations from compilation No. 1 to Compilation No. 7 containing synopsis of the case laws in addition to a written submissions in support of the oral submissions made by him in the Court. This has resulted in making the record too bulky. Each compilation contains number of judgements on each point. For example, in compilation no.2, on the question of consideration of subsequent events, he had referred to ten judgements of this Court and the Supreme Court. In fact one judgement of this Court in the case of Saroj Kumari (deceased) and others Vs. Suresh Chand and others in Writ Petition no.8017 of 2003 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Agarwal on 20.12.2012 has been referred at two places with two different equivalent citations and by mentioning different paragraph of the same judgement giving an impression that these are two different judgements on the same point. The Court is constrained to record that this approach of the counsel is nothing but an effort either to mislead the Court or to make the record so bulky as to make it difficult for the Court to decide the matter. Similarly on the point of "duties of Appellate Court to discuss the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while upsetting its finding and to consider the evidence of the parties", nineteen judgements of this Court and the Supreme Court have been given in compilation no.4. In compilation no.1, there are fourteen judgements on four different points and in compilation no.7 there are twenty seven judgements on different points. There are two other compilations i.e. compilation nos.3 and 6 which also contain four judgements, thus approximately hundred judgements have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in seven compilations supplied by him before oral argument in the matter had started.

(2.) After the arguments were over on 05.01.2016, he again passed on a written submission in support of his oral submission citing a number of judgements in various paragraph of the written submissions.

(3.) This Court may note that the bulky records took lot of precious time of the Court to go through the case laws cited by the counsel and this has caused delay in delivery of the judgement.