SHANTANU KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) L .P.A. Nos.495 of 2012, 515 of 2012 and 438 of 2012 have been listed in the category of "Hearing  on 29.4.2013 in spite of the fact that in L.P.A. Nos. 438 of 2012 and 515 of 2012, delay has not been condoned and these appeals have not been admitted.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 495 of 2012 submitted that all these matters have been listed since he sought permission for listing these matters by way of Bench slip, which was granted by this Court and, therefore, office may have inadvertently tagged all these matters and placed them under the category of "Hearing .

(3.) IN view of repeated reminder to Bar of obtaining consent of all other advocates before mentioning any case orally or for bench slip permission, it is always presumed by the Court that whenever any permission for listing of the matter is submitted or matter is mentioned, the consent of all concerned advocates has been obtained. In a case where rival counsel refused to give consent for listing the matter, then such note may be appended in the Bench slip that other counsel has been informed for listing the matter but he did not give consent and in that situation, the office is directed to list the matter in the Court on the date given by the Court in Bench slip so that appropriate order may be passed in presence of both the parties to avoid/settle controversy of listing the matter in Court and to see that for listing the matter or preponing of the matter, there should not be any veto power of any of the contesting party. The contesting counsel may have right to seek adjustment in date so that he may be comfortable in arguing the matter but no party gets vested right against preponing the hearing of the matters by Court in a case, where case is made out for listing of matter prior to date given by the Office or even by the Court itself, which cannot be prevented.