Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court: While addressing the chaos caused by the compilation of the cause list, a single-judge bench comprising of Arun Monga, J., issued directives to prevent similar issues in the future and adjourned the case in hand to a later date, considering the absence of representation from the respondents and the urgency of the matter.

In the instant matter, the Registry of the Court compiled a cause list that included a staggering 1,609 cases, spanning across 145 pages. These cases were scheduled for hearing before the Bench. However, the cause list was chaotic, as it intermingled cases from another Bench that wasn’t holding court that day. This amalgamation of cases from different Benches created confusion and made it challenging for the Bench to identify cases previously under its purview. Additionally, learned counsels, aware of the impracticality of handling such a large number of cases, competed to bring their cases to the forefront through mentioning, consuming considerable time.

“What baffles common sense is how the Registry anticipates this Bench to navigate through this labyrinthine situation, akin to unscrambling a scrambled egg.”

Before delving into the case in hand, the Court deemed appropriate to address the chaotic situation spawned by the Registry, and directed the Registry to take pre-emptive measures to prevent similar crises in the future. Specifically, when cases from another Bench are listed before a substitute Bench, the cause lists must be distinctly delineated. The cases should be published separately, with specific annotations designating them as the routine list of the substitute Bench and the additional cause list of the Bench not holding court, or alternatively labeled as Cause List (A) and (B) for clarity. Moreover, the second cause list should include details of the substitute courtroom and judge.

The Court then proceeded to address the case at hand, which had been mentioned by the petitioner’s counsel. Notice and stay were issued, and since the respondents were not represented, the Court adjourned the case to a later date. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file a rejoinder, and the case was categorized as a fresh matter due to its urgency.

[Mitthan Lal Samariya v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 772, order dated 27-03-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore, Counsel for the Petitioner

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.