Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] Nos.29728-29731 of 2008

State of Punjab & Anr. ____Petitioners Vs. Ashok Singh Garcha & Ors. ____Respondents

O R D E R  R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.

No ground is made out for granting leave under Article 136  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  The  special  leave petitions are therefore dismissed. We would however like to make a few observations in regard to the manner in which special leave petitions are drafted and filed, as this case is  a  typical  example  of  lack  of  care  and  attention  in drafting the petitions and list of dates.  

2. The case of the petitioners is that there was a public auction  sale  of  certain  surplus  evacuee  rural  lands  on 5.12.1963;  that  on  account  of  collusion  between  the

officers holding the auction and one Shamsher Singh, there was no proper proclamation and consequently, the members of public were not present at the time of auction; and that the said Shamsher Singh cornered several lands by bidding in the names of his several relatives (respondents herein or their predecessors)at low prices.  

3. But interestingly, we find that the synopsis/memo of dates filed by the petitioner along with the special leave petition,  sets  out  a  diametrically  opposite  case,  as follows :

“It is humbly submitted that the land measuring 78 Kanals 16 Marlas situated in village Khera Bet, Tehsil and  District  Ludhiana  was  put  to  open  auction  on December 5, 1963.  Due process as required under the rules was followed before the auction proceedings were conducted.  70  persons  including  ex-sarpanch  and nambardar  (were  present).  However,  the  land  being totally waste, and on the bank of river Satluj, only a few persons participated in the auction.  The  bid  sheet  has  been  placed  on  the  record  as Annexure   P-1. After  auction proceedings the record was  submitted  to  the  competent  authority,  namely settlement  officer  for  approval  and  confirmation  of the  bid,  which  was  confirmed  as  no  objection  was raised by any body.”  

(emphasis supplied)  

4. In  short,  the  facts  stated  in  the  synopsis/list  of dates destroy the case of the petitioners that the auction

2

was  conducted  in  a  secretive  manner  to  prevent  public participation. The reason for such conflicting stands in the special leave petition and the synopsis/list of dates is that while preparing the synopsis/list of dates to be filed with the special leave petition, the petitioners had apparently  copied  the  synopsis/list  of  dates/facts  from the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  respondents  in  the  High Court. In fact, Annexure ‘P1’ (bid sheet) referred in the memo of dates is an annexure to the writ petition and not to  the  special  leave  petition.  Such  mechanical  ‘cut  and paste’ reproduction of what was stated by the respondents in their writ petition, as the facts of the case by the petitioners,  has resulted in the synopsis/list of dates containing  a  case  wholly  destructive  of  the  case  of petitioners in the special leave petition.  

5. We have referred to this incongruity as typical of the synopsis/list of dates which are prepared without proper care and attention. Form 28 under the Supreme Court Rules 1966,  which  is  the  form  prescribed  for  special  leave petitions, does not require the facts to be stated in the petition.  To  enable  the  court  to  know  the  factual background, in the absence of records, clause (b) of Rule 4 (1) of Order XVI of the said Rules requires a list of dates

3

in  chronological  order  with  relevant  material  facts  or events  pertaining  to  each  of  the  dates  to  be  furnished along  with  the  special  leave  petition.  In  practice,  the list of dates is prefaced by a brief synopsis of facts to give a complete and coherent picture of the facts. But  in most  of the special leave petitions, the synopsis/list of dates filed suffer from one or the other of the following defects : (i) filing of only a synopsis without list of dates;  (ii)  filing  of  a  list  of  dates  without  relevant material  facts/events  or  synopsis;  (iii)  filing  of inaccurate and incomplete synopsis/list of dates; and (iv) filing of lengthy synopsis/list of dates without any effort to  make  them  concise  or  precise.  Such  defects  in  the preparation  of  a  proper  synopsis/list  of  dates  cause confusion  and  result  in  defeating  the  very  purpose  of requiring the filing of  synopsis/list of dates.  

6. Petitions  which  are  uncorrected  and  unedited, petitions  with  inaccurate  translations  and  petitions  not accompanied  by  relevant  documents  are  also  common. Adjournments are frequently and routinely sought to produce (i)  copies  of  original  pleadings,  in  SLPs  arising  from civil suits; (ii) copies of FIR/complaint or depositions, in SLPs arising from criminal trials; and (iii) copies of

4

relevant provisions of State enactments/rules in SLPs where such  provisions  fall  for  consideration.  These  result  in avoidable adjournments for filing additional documents or additional affidavits. If the SLPs are properly prepared and filed with all relevant annexures, it will save the precious time of the courts as also of the learned counsel, make  the  functioning  of  the  Registry  smoother  and efficient, and prevent unintended miscarriage of justice. We are conscious of the difficulties in getting documents from  far  away  places.  But  such  difficulties  have  been reduced  to  a  large  extent  on  account  of  the  easy availability of fax, e-mail and photocopying facilities. If clear  and  legible  photocopies  of  certified  copies  of orders/judgments and other documents are filed, instead of typed copies thereof, that may reduce errors in typing and save  time  and  expense.  This  Court  has  been  liberal  in condoning  delays,  keeping  in  view  the  time  required  for securing  the  necessary  documents.  But  it  should  not  be assumed that delays will be condoned or adjournments will be granted, merely for the asking. Nor should a stage be reached where it becomes necessary to frequently resort to dismissals for non-prosecution or levy of costs to ensure compliance.  In  short,  the  Advocates-on-Record  should  pay

5

more  attention  to  the  preparation  and  filing  of  Special Leave Petitions.  

7. One of the objects of providing that appearances and filings  in  this  Court  shall  be  only  by  or  through Advocates-on-Record (unless the party appears in person) is to ensure that Advocates well versed with the Supreme Court Rules and experienced in drafting the petitions (with list of dates), will prepare and file them. That object will be defeated,  if  petitions  are  filed  by  Advocates-on-Record without  verifying  the  facts  or  without  preparing  proper synopsis/list  of  dates.  We  also  frequently  come  across special leave petitions, where the Advocates-on-Record who filed them do not appear. Even when asked to appear, they are  not  able  to  answer  queries  regarding  the  petitions filed in their names, thereby indicating that the petitions were  filed  in  their  names,  by  others.  This  unhealthy practice of Advocates-on-Record merely lending their names for  filing  SLPs  or  for  entering  ‘appearances’,  without taking the responsibility for the proper preparation and filing  of  the  SLPs,  or  the  responsibility  for  proper appearances in the cases, requires to be deprecated.  

6

8. It is with some reluctance and hesitation that we have drawn  attention  of  the  Advocates-on-record  to  the  above aspects. We make it clear that :

-- the purpose of these observations is not to find fault with the Advocates-on-Record in general, but to focus their attention on areas that require improvement, to ensure that the litigant public are served better and to reduce delay and expense to the litigant; and -- these SLPs. are rejected not on the ground of any defect in  drafting,  but  on  merits;  the  general  observations  in para 5 onwards are not with reference to these petitions, which  are  well-drafted  except  the  error  in  the  list  of dates.  

The  Registry  is  requested  to  place  a  copy  of  this order before the Hon. Chief Justice of India, for his kind consideration and if he so deems fit, to send a copy to the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.     

_________________J [R. V. Raveendran]

__________________J [J. M. Panchal]

New Delhi; December 19, 2008.  

7