In a stern rebuke against procedural impropriety, the Allahabad High Court has condemned the unauthorized conversion of a Second Appeal into a First Appeal From Order (FAFO) without explicit judicial permission. Justice Kshitij Shailendra, while hearing FAFO No. 2307 of 2024, emphasized that court staff must adhere strictly to judicial processes and avoid unilateral changes to court records.
The matter arose in the appeal filed by Mahendra Kumar Jain and six others (appellants) against Sobran Singh and eleven others (respondents). The appellants were represented by Advocate Manish Kumar Jain. The case drew attention due to its procedural irregularity, where a “Second Appeal” was converted to a “First Appeal From Order” following an office note, allegedly relying on court observations.
Background of the Case
The appellants initially filed a Second Appeal challenging the decision of the first appellate court, which had remanded the case to the trial court. On October 16, 2024, Justice Shailendra observed that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 100 of the CPC. Instead, a First Appeal From Order under Order 43 Rule 1(u) of the CPC was the correct remedy.
Despite this observation, the appellants’ counsel, without filing any formal application, approached the court’s Section Office, which unilaterally allowed the correction to convert the appeal into a FAFO.
The Court’s Observations
Justice Shailendra took strong exception to the procedural lapse, observing:
“It is apparent that learned counsel for the appellant has approached the Section Office and incorporated the changes. The act of learned counsel for the appellant is seriously condemnable and, at the same time, office is directed to furnish an explanation.”
The Court emphasized that judicial power rests solely with the Bench, and no office staff or counsel can assume such authority without explicit leave of the Court.
In its subsequent hearings, the court noted an explanation dated November 19, 2024, submitted by the office, claiming it followed a “prevalent practice” based on judicial observations. Rejecting this rationale, the Court remarked:
“The explanation offered transgresses the judicial powers of this Court in a case where the proceeding is held to be non-maintainable, yet the office attempts to apply its own ‘wisdom’ to convert one proceeding into another.”
Disciplinary Action Ordered
The High Court took serious note of the lapse and directed disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Assistant Registrar (Second Appeal), and Mr. Dibyanshu Kumar, Review Officer. The Court expressed disapproval of their casual approach, stating that they had failed to grasp the gravity of their actions.
While warning Advocate to remain vigilant in the future, Justice Shailendra clarified that court observations on non-maintainability do not authorize any party to make alterations to court records unilaterally.
Key Directives Issued
1. Disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against court officials.
2. Apology tendered by the office was rejected.
3. Counsel for the appellant directed to file an appropriate application if required.
4. The matter was placed before the Registrar General for necessary action.
The next hearing has been scheduled for February 10, 2025.
Case Details:
– Case No: FAFO No. 2307 of 2024
– Bench: Justice Kshitij Shailendra
– Appellants: Mahendra Kumar Jain and six others
– Respondents: Sobran Singh and eleven others
