MARITIME ASSOCIATION OF SHIP OWNERS SHIP MANAGERS AND AGENTS Vs. MACKINNON MACKENIZE AND COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) YESTERDAY, a praecipe was filed before me by Mr. O. P. Soni, Advocate accompanied by a draft Judges Order and an affidavit dated 8-7-2002 sworn in by Captain A. P. Kothurkar, Secretary of the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant then requested me to pass an order in terms of the draft Judges Order and requested me to sign the Judges order tendered to me.

(2.) IN the last few days, since I took up this assignment, many such requests were made for passing of orders in terms of Judges Order, almost all of which I had declined to grant. Since repeated requests are made. I am passing this speaking order in this matter after having heard all the appearing Counsels in several matters which were listed today under the caption "judges Order". Learned Counsel stated that the phrase "judges Order" is not used anywhere in the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules (for short "the Rules") except in Form No. 109. Form No. 109 is regarding Letters of Administration which has no relevance to this matter or any other matters in which the "judges Order" was sought. Learned Counsel submitted that under Rule 988, in respect of matters not provided by the Code of Civil Procedure or by the Rules, the present practice and procedure is to be followed so far as it is applicable and not inconsistent with the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rules. It was contended that the practice of handing in draft "judges Order" is followed in this Court for many years prior to the said Rules and that Judges have been signing such draft orders and therefore, the same practice should be continued.

(3.) RULE 55 of the Rules prescribes that all petitions and miscellaneous applications shall be on oath and shall be verified in the manner provided by Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure for verification of the pleadings. It is thus clear that a request to pass the "judges Order" must also be made by means of a petition declared on oath and verified in the manner provided by Order VI, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The present practice to hand in the Judges Order and an affidavit, without moving/filing any petition is contrary to Rule No. 55 and is therefore, not saved by Rule No. 988. Presently, the request for Judges Order is made by means of a praecipe, called out at 2. 45 p. m. under the caption "judges Order". The affidavit and the Judges Order is numbered and no record is maintained in the office until the Judges Order is signed by the Judge in Chambers. When the Judge declines to pass an order, the papers are simple taken back by the learned Counsel. This is undesirable state of affairs. I have no doubt that no Counsel of this Court would do it but any uncanny litigant may change the Counsel and present the same Judges Order which was once declined, before another Judge after the Roaster/assignment changes. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that before moving the Court or the Judge in Chambers, to pass the Judges order, an application/petition as required under Rule 55 of the Rules be filed. The office should examine and number the petition. There should be a paper record. Only thereafter, the petition accompanied by the draft "judges Order" may be placed before the Judge in Chambers.