1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Appeal against Order No. 1 of 2008 [Smt. M.J. Bundiwal & ors. Vs. V.J. Bundiwal & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.V. Bhangde, Advocate for the appellants. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 09th January,2008. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Bhangde for the appellants. In the midst of hearing, learned Advocate Mr. V.V. Bhangde prays for a permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file an application for review. 2. While this Court is considering the question of granting permission to withdraw the Appeal, it cannot be ruled upon without adverting to the annexure at page 106 [Exh.60 of the Trial Court record], which is a Pursis filed by defendant nos. 1 to 3 after the order was 2 passed by the learned Trial Judge. 3. It is pertinent to note that the impugned order is passed on 20th November, 2007, while the Pursis [Exh.60] is filed after fourteen days from passing the said order. 4. The said Pursis [Exh.60] contains certain statements as to findings recorded and observations by Trial Court in the order of granting injunction. It is thereby alleged that the findings recorded by the Court are contrary to the arguments of respondent nos. 1 to 3, as well based on certain observations, which was nobody's case etc. It is also alleged that certain averments contained in the Written Statement have not been adverted to. 5. The averments incorporated in Pursis is an act done most probably after the appellants took steps and consulted the Advocate for preparing to file present Appeal. 6. Though allegations are made, any prayer for any orders from the Trial Court based on the averments contained in said Pursis is not made, since the Pursis is not an application with prayers. Opposite party has no chance to meet it, nor can the Court suo motu take matter for consideration. The Pursis is a sheer declaration of contents therein, a totally unilateral act of the party filing it. 3 7. When called upon as to what was the object of filing such Pursis and relying on it in this Court, learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that filing of such Pursis is necessary in view of certain Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, requiring a party to agitate the issue relating to the proceedings of any Court before the same Court. 8. Be it that the filing of Pursis is the bona fide act, even then filing thereof is not the course liable to be adopted. A Party, who is keen on bringing to the notice of the Judge that there is an error in noting the pleadings or submissions and the error is of such apparent nature that it would warrant review of the order, or wants to have corrected the recording of submissions, should make an application with a proper prayer and in that eventuality, Court would decide such application and give its ruling. 9. Filing of Pursis, as done in the present case, is in the nature of throwing a Pursis on the Court without affording to the respondents an opportunity to have their say on it and without permitting the Court or requiring it to adjudicate on it. This practice, however, seems to have been widely followed with least respect to the need of observance of principles of natural justice and primary obligation of 4 such applicant so applying towards adversary. 10. This Court had also noticed in the group of Letters Patent Appeal Nos.172 of 178 of 2003, decided on 11th September, 2007 that such practice of throwing a Pursis and remaining supine on it was adopted by learned Advocate even in this Court. These appeals were circulated for hearing before Division Bench, before which appeals were liable to be listed as per roster. Said Bench expressed that appeals should be heard by a Special Bench which was constituted for admission hearing and, therefore, the appeals were removed from the board. Learned Advocate for the appellant, instead of praying for circulation or giving a note to the Administrative Side or to the Hon'ble Chief Justice or to Senior Judge for re- constitution of a Special Bench, simply filed a Pursis narrating as to what has transpired and kept quiet until office suo motu listed the cases before the Special Bench. 11. It is also seen that by filing such Pursis, attempts, such as browbeating the subordinate Judiciary, are made. These Judicial Officers are thereby put under threat that a record has been created of what was sought to be argued or allegedly argued, and would be a foundation or a ground of complaint to be made to the higher forum or higher authority apart from being a ground of appeal or challenge. 5 12. A party truly relying on such plea should show the scruples of filing appropriate application thereby permitting other side to represent its side on it and inviting the Judge to pass an order. 13. In this background, it has become necessary to observe that such practice of charging the Court of omissions should be deprecated. This would certainly not deprive a party of applying in a proper form by employing proper language and proper prayers. If this course is adopted, it shall certainly enhance the prestige both of Bench and Bar and will provide due and required protection to the rights of aggrieved parties. 14. In the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that present is a fit case to saddle the appellants with costs of Rs.2,000-00 [rupees two thousand only] for filing of this Pursis, which is ordered accordingly. 15. This Court, therefore, directs that the Pursis [Exh.60] be struck off from record as rejected and that the defendants should pay a cost of Rs.5,000-00 [rupees five thousand only]. This amount should go to the District Legal Services Committee of District Court, Nagpur, and it be deposited within thirty days from today. 6 16. With above observations, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Judge |Hedau|