The Allahabad High Court, in the case Mahendra Kumar Jain & Ors. v. Sobran Singh & Ors. (First Appeal From Order No. 2307 of 2024), delivered a stern warning against unauthorized procedural modifications in judicial records. Justice Kshitij Shailendra presided over the matter, addressing significant lapses by the appellants’ counsel and the court staff.
Case Background
The case originated as a dispute involving the appellants, Mahendra Kumar Jain and others, against Sobran Singh and multiple respondents. During the proceedings, a procedural issue arose when the appellants’ counsel sought to convert a Second Appeal into a First Appeal From Order under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The controversy centered on whether such a conversion was permissible without explicit judicial permission.
The appellants’ counsel, Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, attempted the conversion based on an earlier observation by the Court regarding maintainability but failed to seek formal approval. This action prompted scrutiny into procedural propriety.
Key Legal Issues
1. Maintainability of Appeal: The Court initially observed that a Second Appeal was non-maintainable following its remand by the first appellate court, indicating the need for a First Appeal From Order under Order XLIII Rule 1(u) CPC.
2. Unauthorized Procedural Changes: The case raised critical concerns about the authority of court staff and counsel to alter judicial records without express permission from the Court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kshitij Shailendra delivered a detailed judgment condemning the procedural irregularities:
– On the lack of authorization for converting the appeal, the Court noted:
“Admittedly, neither the Court ever permitted conversion of this Second Appeal into First Appeal From Order nor any application seeking such permission was ever filed. It is, therefore, apparent that learned counsel for the appellant has approached the Section Office and incorporated the changes. The act…is seriously condemnable.”
– Highlighting the staff’s lapse, the Court stated:
“The explanation offered transgresses the judicial powers of this Court…without there being any order of the Court, the office attempts to apply its own ‘wisdom’ to convert one proceeding into another.”
Outcome and Directions
1. The Court rejected the apology tendered by the office staff and directed administrative proceedings against Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Assistant Registrar (Second Appeal), and Mr. Dibyanshu Kumar, Review Officer.
2. Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Manish Kumar Jain, was sternly warned to exercise greater vigilance in future matters.
3. The matter was adjourned for further consideration on February 10, 2025, with directions for appropriate applications to be filed in the interim.
